2018-04-23

Private Members' Business
Endangered WhalesMs. Karen Ludwig (New Brunswick Southwest, Lib.):  moved: 
 That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be instructed to undertake a study on the situation of endangered whales and be mandated to (i) identify steps that could be taken to better protect and help the recovery of right, beluga, and killer whales, (ii) identify immediate and longer term improvements limiting the impact of human activities on each of these species and, by so doing, add to recovery efforts and to recommendations for new or enhanced actions, (iii) call expert witnesses on each of the species, hearing from those who might be impacted by any possible actions, and working to find a balance among various competing claims; and that the Committee present its final report to the House within four months of the adoption of this motion. 
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to present Motion No. 154, my motion to enhance the protection and recovery of Canada's endangered whale species.
New Brunswick Southwest, the riding I am honoured to represent, is situated along the beautiful Bay of Fundy. My interest in the protection and recovery of whales was initially based on my experience locally, and what they mean to us from an ecological, cultural, and economic standpoint.
Whales are the largest and the most intelligent mammals in our oceans. The endangerment of whales is an indication of the state and health of our oceans. The dramatic loss of 17 North Atlantic right whales in 2017 heightened my interest to advocate for their protection and population recovery. With two other whale species at risk, the southern resident killer whale and the St. Lawrence estuary beluga, it became clear that my private member's motion should encompass all of Canada's endangered whale species.
From my riding, in 2017, we tragically lost Joseph Howlett while he was disentangling a North Atlantic right whale. Joe participated in nearly 30 whale rescues over the past 15 years.
As parliamentarians, we also have the unique opportunity to advocate on issues that matter to Canadians and, in this case, to the researchers, whale rescuers, and others who work so tirelessly for the protection and recovery of whales. We know that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are deeply concerned about the long-term protection and recovery of these magnificent mammals.
Currently in Canada, we have a global population of 450 North Atlantic right whales, 900 St. Lawrence estuary belugas, and a southern resident killer whale population of just 76.
Our approach to finding solutions must continue to be driven by research, in collaboration with fishing and marine transportation industries, indigenous communities, the tourism industry, and international stakeholders. The world's leading scientists and others have long worked with marine industries to find a balance that provides maximum protection to whales and minimal disruption to industry.
Over the past six months, I have consulted with over 50 experts and stakeholders across our great country and the United States. Their collective voice is clear. We need to do what Canadians and the global community expect us to do on this issue. Time is of the essence, and we do have the means to meet this challenge.
In New Brunswick Southwest, our marine ecosystem is one of the most vital parts of our economy. When it comes to the environment and the ocean's ecosystem, whales help regulate the flow of food by helping to maintain a stable food chain and ensuring that certain animal species do not overpopulate the ocean. Whales are a sentinel for the health of our ecosystem, and they are sending us a message. Their situation speaks volumes to the long-term sustainability of our ocean industries.
I want to thank the Minister of Fisheries for his immediate and effective leadership last summer on the situation of the right whale. The department acted quickly to implement measures in the Gulf of St. Lawrence to protect these magnificent mammals.
 Since that time, the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Transport have introduced even more robust measures to protect the North Atlantic right whale, including an earlier start and end to the snow crab fishing season in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence; fixed and temporary closures where whales are spotted; an earlier speed restriction for ships in the western gulf; and dramatic increase in aerial and at-sea surveillance to detect the whales.
Their efforts and new measures, combined with ongoing scientific research and recent investments in marine protection in budget 2018, give us every indication that our government is on the right track.
I want to recognize the work of Dr. Moira Brown and her team at the Canadian Whale Institute. Dr. Brown has been a tireless advocate for the protection of the right whale for over 30 years. Most recently, Dr. Brown has said:
 The population decline since 2011 demonstrates that right whales do not have the capacity to sustain low birth rates and high death rates for very long. If mortality rates remain the same as between 2011 and 2015, with so few breeding females alive, the species could become functionally extinct in less than 25 years. 
Although there were no new calves born this year, we must remain optimistic that there will be positive outcomes because of the new measures our government has put in place. We have the means to meet this challenge.
Let me give an example. As early as 2007, a study conducted between the Grand Manan Basin and the Roseway Basin determined that reducing vessel speed from 12 knots to 10 knots reduces the risk of a ship strike by 30%, and that in beautiful Bay of Fundy, shifting the shipping lane by four nautical miles to the east reduces the risk of a vessel collision by 90%.
I am convinced that, as we have done with the North Atlantic right whale, similar actions can be taken for the recovery of the beluga and killer whales. In all instances, we need to identify longer-term improvements to limit the impact of human activities on these species.
The situation of the beluga and killer whales is different from that of the North Atlantic right whale. These species tend to be threatened primarily by pollution, noise from shipping, and access to prey. The current population of the St. Lawrence estuary beluga is a mere 900. 
Robert Michaud, the president and scientific director of the Group for Research and Education on Marine Mammals, highlighted this important fact. He said:
 The history of other species of cetaceans has taught us that populations can decline from 5,000 individuals to extinction in less than twenty years. With a population of 900, the St. Lawrence belugas urgently need effective measures of protection. 
Even more daunting, the current estimated population of the southern resident killer whale is, alarmingly, 76. The range of the southern resident population includes water adjacent to Vancouver, where there is high shipping traffic and other human impacts.
Once again, I would like to recognize the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard for demonstrating our government's commitment to the protection of the southern resident killer whale with the announced $9.1 million in new science funding. 
In addition to this, budget 2018 includes $167.4 million over five years to help protect and recover endangered whale species in Canada, notably the southern resident killer whale, the North Atlantic right whale, and the St. Lawrence Estuary beluga. This includes funding for science activities to help better understand factors affecting the health of whale populations, as well as actions to help address the threats arising from human activities. 
In a letter of support for this motion, Rick Bates, CEO and executive vice-president of the Canadian Wildlife Federation, said:
 A study undertaken by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will benefit all efforts to conserve our endangered whales by producing an all-party examination of the situation and how it can be improved. 
Both immediate and long-term action is required to protect these iconic species. There is no single solution to this problem. 
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans would play an important role in studying the effectiveness of protection and recovery measures to date, hearing from expert witnesses, hearing from those who might be impacted by any possible actions, and working to find a balance among the various stakeholders.
In closing, on a personal note, I would like to dedicate this motion to Joseph Howlett. The dedication of the volunteers and staff who participate in whale disentanglement rescues is inspirational to us all. That is why I am urging members to join me and demonstrate support of Motion No. 154. 
In my opinion, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to explore every avenue available to us to enhance the protection and recovery of Canada's endangered whale species. I look forward to taking my granddaughter out on a boat in the Bay of Fundy where she, too, will fall in love with the ocean, teaming with minkes, humpbacks, and right whales. Canadians and our future generations deserve nothing less.
Mr. Fin Donnelly (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the intention of the member's motion, will she not agree that the time for study is over? We need immediate action for the 76 southern resident killer whales that she identified in her speech. We need the government to issue an immediate emergency order under the Species at Risk Act. We do not need another study. Will the member agree that the time for action is now and that we do not need yet another study?
Karen Ludwig: Mr. Speaker, certainly just 76 southern resident killer whales is an alarming number, but finally we have a government stepping up to do the research and do its homework. I am very proud of our government and the initiatives that have been taken, the dedication to research. In addition to that, we also have the accountability and responsibility to look at how the measures currently in place can be monitored and reviewed and to take into consideration the Species at Risk Act.
In my opinion, when we look at any work being done, we have to look at the maximum protection of whales with a minimal disruption to industry. I believe our government is working hard to find a balance. A committee study will also be reviewing this situation, and we will have the opportunity to hear from the key stakeholders and others.
Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question to the member would be to ask her if she would consider pressuring her Liberal colleagues to actually take action on some of the things that have been recommended. I sit on the fisheries committee, where we have done a number of studies and reports and provided recommendations to the government, but we have seen very little action.
I would like to know if she is willing to step up and pressure the government to take action on the studies that have already been completed by this committee before we continue another study.
Karen Ludwig: Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians, we all have a responsibility to speak to our counterparts and advocate on the direction our government is going. I have worked very closely with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport on behalf of the endangered whales, whether it is having the round tables in Moncton or listening to the conversations that took place in Vancouver. I am very confident that we are going in the right direction and I will do everything I possibly can to ensure we are following through on that.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to build on an earlier question with regard to whether it is too late for action. Would the member not agree that it is never too late to study anything when it comes to the protection of our oceans and to make recommendations to the government, which do get followed?
Karen Ludwig: Mr. Speaker, when we are looking at significant issues like this in Parliament, certainly it is always an ongoing process. We also have to take into consideration measures that have been put in place and review those measures so we know we are going in the right direction.
One of the key statements I heard from stakeholders is that one size does not fit all. As we move forward, it is really important that there be continued dialogue, whether it is with indigenous communities, scientists, researchers, the fishing communities, the transportation communities, or the tourism sector, so that we get this right, and there are times when we do look at changes. The course we are moving forward with may require some adaptation. I think that is an important point. When the committee studies this issue, it is an opportunity to look at the possible avenues that should be receiving focus, possibly going in a different direction or reaffirming that they are going in the right direction, as well as looking at who else should be at the table and having a conversation.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be one of the seconders for this motion. The way I see it, we know action must be taken, and a study should not delay action. For instance, we know seismic testing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is disastrous for the right whale. While the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has taken some steps, we have not yet banned seismic testing. We know that southern resident killer whales are on the precipice. We need to rebuild their food supply. They need the chinook salmon and less threat of tanker traffic. We do not need to stall action while we study.
Does my hon. colleague agree that doing a study is not an excuse for failing to take emergency measures?
Karen Ludwig: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for seconding my motion. Action is taking place, and action will occur as the study is going on. In fact, I would argue this is a complement to the work already being done. 
With regard to the seismic testing, there are environmental controls that have been put into place. However, there is certainly an opportunity as well when it goes before the committee to bring in experts to testify regarding any impacts it may or may not have had in the Gulf of St. Lawrence or off the coast of Nova Scotia.
Mel Arnold: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for New Brunswick Southwest for her motion and her speech this morning. It is truly a noble cause to try to save the last of any species. As she said, her original thought was to do a study on the endangered right whales. However, she eventually allowed it to encompass beluga and killer whales.
The declining population of the whale species is something we should be concerned with, and I believe we all are. We have inventories of right whales predicted to become functionally extinct within a few decades unless action is taken. We saw 17 dead whales on the Atlantic coast in Canada and the U.S. last year, and so far this year there have been no new calves sighted in those populations.
However, I debate here that this is not time for another study. It is time for action. 
Before I get into the reasons for saying that another study is not the answer, I first want to sincerely thank and recognize all of the work that the local groups have put into the conservation of whales and other species.
My path to this House was an unpaved path, working with conservation organizations, where I learned that it is the work on the ground that can accomplish goals beyond anyone's wildest hopes. I applaud the volunteers for all they do—people like Joseph Howlett, who lost his life while saving the life of an entangled whale, and all those who transpose their words into actions. While I also applaud the member for New Brunswick Southwest for the idea of having the standing committee study the issue with the mandate of identifying ways to protect and recover the species, I want to point out some alarming facts.
 First, as a member of the current majority government, she has or should have access to the ministers responsible for taking action on protecting and recovering any species needing help. Why has she not been able to get the ear of her ministers? Why is she, as a member of the majority Liberal caucus, forced to ask the House of Commons to support her motion to do what her party's ministers should already be doing? I propose that it is because her Liberal ministers are not as committed to saving the environment as they purport to be. We see much talk from the Liberal government and very little action.
Second, I would like to point out that while she has presented this motion to have the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans undertake a study and present a report, has she looked at her own government's record of acting on that or other committees' report recommendations?
 I bring to the attention of the House the report from the committee entitled “Newfoundland and Labrador's Northern Cod Fishery: Charting a New Sustainable Future”, which had 10 recommendations, with almost none acted upon. The report from the same committee entitled “Wild Atlantic Salmon in Eastern Canada” had 17 recommendations, with very few acted upon. These recommendations directly dealt with predation, seal population overabundance, and exploding striped bass populations, which are all impacting the wild Atlantic salmon and the cod stocks in the Atlantic. The committee put a lot of hard work and time into those studies and coming up with those recommendations.
Although the member for New Brunswick Southwest may have good intentions, her efforts and our time in this chamber would be better spent if she were more successful in lobbying her own Liberal colleagues, especially her own Liberal cabinet ministers and the Atlantic Liberal fisheries committee members to have action taken instead of repeating talking points. 
The member for New Brunswick Southwest has five Liberal colleagues from the Maritimes on that standing committee. I sit on that standing committee, where the members have invested themselves heavily in providing complete, impartial, detailed reports to this House, and I am frustrated at the inaction and incompetence of the government in responding to the committee's recommendations.
The maritime Liberal members on that committee, five of them, must be either embarrassed or furious, but scared to speak out that their government has ignored the recommendations put forward by the committee. Why have they not spoken out? They are failing to stand up for their constituents. Recommendations that could help recover Canada's northern cod stocks, recommendations that could help recover wild Atlantic salmon, recommendations that could provide economic benefits for Canada's indigenous and non-indigenous peoples were all derived by our hard-working committee members and cast aside by a Liberal government that is becoming exposed as all talk and little action.
Speaking of the hard work on our committee, we are currently in the process of doing three different studies. One of them was approved over 16 months ago and its first meeting was held over one year ago. This motion's deadline would further delay those studies. I hope that the studies we are completing now will come up with recommendations for the government through this House and that those recommendations will be followed. That is why I have caution about what we are doing here. I do not oppose doing a study, but I am opposed to doing a study, making recommendations, and having a government not follow through on those recommendations.
As I have said, we have recommendations in these reports that I want to quote from: 
 That Fisheries and Oceans Canada support a grey seal harvest program that emphasizes full utilization of the seal to provide economic opportunities with an aim to significantly reduce the seal populations and enhance the recovery of wild Atlantic salmon populations. 
We still have yet to see any action on that.
From the report on northern cod, we had another recommendation that we:
 Ensure careful management for prey availability, especially capelin, and factor in ecosystem considerations like habitat protection and climate change 
and
 That, Fisheries and Oceans Canada implement management practices to deliver the greatest value from the resource with the lowest impact on stocks. 
These are the types of recommendations that the committee put a lot of hard work into, and I commend all the members on that committee. We truly worked together to come up with significant, respectful recommendations. As we move forward through the debate on this issue, I hope that the government is listening and that the importance of these recommendations and government action on those recommendations comes through, because it is disheartening as a member of Parliament and as a member of the committee to put that hard work in and not have it heeded.
As I said, we are currently working on a number of motions and studies on the fisheries committee. Those studies tend to get waylaid and set aside as other things pop up that seem to be more important or more urgent. I do not know if there is anything more important than protecting a species that is possibly at the brink of no return. Therefore, while I do not oppose this motion, I would like to move that the motion be amended by deleting the words “within four months of the adoption of this motion”. That is so that we can have time to complete these other studies and that we are not set at a deadline for a time to complete this study, because it may take more than four months. I would prefer that we not be limited by a set timeline, so that the committee can continue to do good work and provide good recommendations that will be heeded by the government.
As such, I move that the motion be amended by deleting the words “within four months of the adoption of this motion”.
The Deputy Speaker: In accordance with Standing Order 93(3), no amendment can be made to a private member's motion or at the second reading stage of a private member's bill, unless, of course, it has the consent of the sponsor.
I therefore ask the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest if she consents to this amendment.
Karen Ludwig: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not.
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), the amendment cannot be moved at this time.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.
Fin Donnelly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on Motion No. 154, which reads:
 That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be instructed to undertake a study on the situation of endangered whales and be mandated to (i) identify steps that could be taken to better protect and help the recovery of right, beluga, and killer whales, (ii) identify immediate and longer term improvements limiting the impact of human activities on each of these species and, by so doing, add to recovery efforts and to recommendations for new or enhanced actions, (iii) call expert witnesses on each of the species, hearing from those who might be impacted by any possible actions, and working to find a balance among various competing claims; and that the Committee present its final report to the House within four months of the adoption of this motion. 
While I support the intention of the motion, I believe it may be too little too late, and certainly for some whales. The government needs to take action on protecting the most vulnerable species immediately, not wait for the outcome of a committee study.
As everyone knows, I am from the west coast, and the situation facing our iconic southern resident killer whales is dire. In 1997, the Squamish Nation bestowed an amazing responsibility on me. They gave me the name Iyim Yewyews, which means “strong swimmer in the animal world” or “orca, blackfish”. I wear this name proudly and with a lot of responsibility. They gave me this name because of the work I do on salmon. They realized that if the salmon are plentiful, the orca, which feeds on the salmon, will also be plentiful. We know that is not the case.
Again, I take this very seriously. Southern resident killer whales were listed as endangered under the Species at Risk Act in 2003. By 2016, only 76 individual whales, 23 of them female, remained in this population. Recovery is still possible, if the government stops dragging its heels and takes immediate action.
On March 15, the minister announced funding for research, but that funding will not help them today. Environmental organizations have joined together to call on the government to issue an emergency order under the Species at Risk Act to provide emergency protection, but the government has failed to act. I joined that call by asking for an emergency order for these whales in the House on March 21, 2018.
The situation is critical. We do not have decades to fix the problem. We do not even have years to fix the problem. These whales do not need another study; they need swift and immediate action. A steady decline in chinook salmon, combined with disturbances from vessels, which interferes with the whales' ability to hunt and communicate, has put this iconic species at serious risk of malnutrition and starvation. The orcas cannot find food, let alone reproduce. There has not been a single southern resident orca calf reported to have been born since early 2016, until just last week. A single calf has been spotted—a glimmer of hope.
Shipping activity and oil and gas development cause noise that can disturb and even damage their hearing and communication. This disturbance prevents them from using critical feeding and breeding grounds, and it disrupts their migratory path. A recent study found that southern resident orcas lose up to 97% of their ability to communicate with each other because of noise pollution, making Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline and the associated oil tankers it will bring a direct threat to the killer whale population. The pipeline project will bring an increase in oil tanker traffic to the west coast, along with a corresponding increase in noise. Even if by some miracle the project goes completely according to plan and there are no oil spills or ship strikes, the increase in noise alone significantly puts this species at risk of extinction.
Southern resident killer whales use sounds in order to establish and maintain critical life functions. They use them to navigate, find and select mates, maintain their social network, and to locate and capture prey. The current level of ocean noise has already degraded critical habitat, and studies suggest that it has reduced their feeding efficiency. The 76 southern resident killer whales desperately need action by the government to reduce the immediate threats they are facing today, including the impact that the pipeline project may have on their ability to recover.
In March of this year, Washington State issued an executive order with time-bound measures to benefit southern resident killer whales, including actions concerning fisheries, whale-watching vessels, and state ferries. The Species at Risk Act has a process for the federal government to enact a similar emergency order, and I encourage them to do so without delay. 
 Speaking to DeSmog Canada about the recent Liberal announcement of more research to help the southern resident killer whale, Paul Paquet, adjunct professor at the University of Victoria and senior scientist with Raincoast Conservation Foundation said, “We could study them literally to death at this point.”
 Misty MacDuffee, a biologist with Raincoast said, “What we’re really looking for from the federal government right now is threat reductions.” She went on to state, “We've been waiting and waiting for the government to take some sort of action that would at least contribute to the protection of killer whales, but none has been taken to date." They need action now, rather than waiting for yet another study to be complete and say the same thing.
 President and CEO of WWF-Canada, Megan Leslie, agrees. In an op-ed in the Hill Times on April 20, she said, “While funding for technology and research is important, a cash infusion alone won't feed the 76 orcas facing extinction today.” She described the situation as an “emergency of the tallest order” and recommended immediate action, including “protection of feeding areas from fishing and disturbance by recreational/whale watching vessels, speed reductions for commercial vessels to reduce noise pollution in and near feeding areas, and chinook salmon catch reductions for the health of both species.” She said, “All of these [measures] need to be in place by late spring [of this year] when the orcas return to feed.” The clock is ticking. The minister must take immediate action. 
The situation is not much better on the Atlantic coast. On March 16 of this year, the CBC reported that there has not been a single North Atlantic right whale calf spotted this year. That is an unprecedented and alarming sign for this critically endangered species. Usually, mothers and calves making their way north toward Atlantic Canada are spotted by the end of February, but halfway through March, there had not been a single calf sighted, for the very first time. The North Atlantic right whale is highly endangered. There are only about 450 of them left, 100 of them females.
 Between April and November of 2017, at least 16 North Atlantic right whales died, 12 of them in Canadian waters. At least three of those had been entangled in fishing gear, and four showed evidence of blunt force trauma, which was most likely from a ship strike. 
The 16 deaths represent more than 3.5% of the population. To put that in perspective, that would be the equivalent of about 1.25 million Canadians suddenly dying over seven months. 
On April 20, speaking to the The Washington Post about North Atlantic right whales, marine biologist Charles Mayo, said:
 ...climate change seems to be shifting the animals' food source. Their habitat has been polluted with sewage and made noisy by construction and seismic tests. Speeding ships and tangles of hard-to-break fishing rope pose deadly threats. New technology and tightened regulations could protect the whales from some of the big hazards. 
 ...the whales are a metaphor for what we have done to the planet. 
Painfully, I agree. This is shameful. The situation is critical. We do not need the fisheries and oceans committee to tell us that. Scientists have already proved that. We need immediate action. They want immediate action. Protecting them is in the national interest. 
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to what I believe is a very important motion that my friend and colleague, the member for New Brunswick Southwest, has brought forward. 
In fact, reflecting on one of the member's comments, I think it is important to recognize that this motion is not necessarily about today. There is a lot that we can do today when it comes to ensuring whales live into the future, but my colleague made reference to her granddaughter. She wants to ensure that the experiences we have today when it comes to whales will be there in the future for her granddaughter. When we look at the types of issues that the House of Commons, the Prime Minister, and government as a whole deal with day in and day out, it is about the future. It is ensuring that we are doing the things that are necessary to have a positive impact into the future. 
However, my Conservative and New Democratic friends often disappoint me in regard to their general attitudes when a member takes a good, solid initiative. Once again, I have been disappointed. They have asked why we need another study and why do we not just do things. Well, especially coming from the Tories, that is a little much, I must say. This was even from my New Democratic friends, who do not believe in studies. The only study they believe in is something that would prevent oil and gas pipelines from ever being built. That is the only time they seem to support a study. 
 I would suggest that this government has taken a number of actions to date, which I would like to reference, and the motion that my colleague has brought is forward thinking. It is about the future. We are taking a look at an important mammal species, three in particular, and highlighting the issues that are not only important to the member and her riding, but I truly believe are important to all Canadians, even to the riding of Winnipeg North, which is in the centre of Canada. Further north, we get to Churchill, where we find the beluga whale, which is well recognized and is a beautiful mammal. The motion talks about three species: the beluga, with reference to the St. Lawrence; the north Atlantic right whale, a beautiful mammal, which has a population that is on the decrease and cannot ensure its longevity into the future; and, of course, there is the southern resident killer whale from B.C. 
We are a government that has caucus representatives in all regions of the country. The 32 members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada continuously advocate for important issues in the region. We have heard about the right whale inside and outside of caucus. We understand and appreciate the concern, and share the concern. We want to see government take actions that will have a very real impact.
Therefore, when I hear opposition members from across the way asking why there is another study, I can assure them that not only is it good for us to look at ways in which we can make things better, but we are, as a government, taking tangible action today. We have the oceans protection plan with $1.5 billion, which is the first ever. We have been in government for just over two years, and we are seeing this commitment of hundreds of millions of dollars to protect our oceans.
We did not need a motion from the New Democrats or the Conservatives on that issue. All we needed to do was to listen to Canadians. By listening to Canadians we recognized the importance of not only talking about it but also ensuring that the necessary finances and resources would be there to have a positive impact on our oceans. The sum of $1.5 billion is an incredible amount of money. In budget 2018 alone, somewhere around $180 million, or even more, over the next five years is being put in place to ensure that our whale species are taken care of and that actions are taken to ensure the longevity of those whale species. Knowing the Conservatives, they probably voted against it, but that is for another day. 
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in Atlantic Canada a few months ago, and there was a round table on the right whale. There was a symposium in Vancouver dealing with the southern killer whale. Those are the types of things our government is actually doing. 
The money that has been invested into our oceans and the department will lead to more scientific studies. Science is important. We have a sense why these issues are before us today. We understand and appreciate there are some things for which we need to get a better understanding. We heard some examples, such as issues to do with food and prey, as well as acoustics. What is taking place in our oceans today is quite different from what took place many years ago. It is truly amazing how much rubbish and fishing gear ends up in our oceans, along with other types of pollutants. There is a litany of things we need to look into and apply some science to in the hope that we can make a difference. 
I applaud the member for New Brunswick Southwest for taking this initiative and moving this motion for us today. I am hopeful she would be sympathetic and accept an amendment that I would like to propose at this time. I move:
 That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and replacing them with the following: 
 “the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be instructed to undertake a study on the situation of endangered whales and be mandated to: 
 (i) identify steps that could be taken to continue the efforts to protect and help the recovery of NARW, beluga, and Southern Resident Killer Whales; 
 (ii) to identify immediate and longer term improvements limiting the impact of human activities on each of these species and, by so doing, add to recovery efforts and to recommendations for new or enhanced actions; 
 (iii) call on expert witnesses on each of the species and those who might be impacted by any possible actions to work to find a balance among various competing claims; 
 (iv) and that the committee present its final report to House by the end of the 2018 calendar year. 

The Deputy Speaker: In accordance with Standing Order 93(3), no amendment can be made to a private member's motion or to the second reading stage of a private member's bill, unless it has the consent of the sponsor. I will therefore ask the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest if if she consents to the amendment. 
Karen Ludwig: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague made a very passionate speech about whales, and I am pleased to accept the amendment.
I also want to say that the situation with whales today in Canada did not turn—
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, we are not allowed to make additional commentary on this. 
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I am speaking on behalf of our critic for fisheries and oceans, the member for Cariboo—Prince George. I would like to extend my condolences and those of our caucus to him on the loss of his mother-in-law.
Motion No. 154 is sponsored by the Liberal member for New Brunswick Southwest. The endangered right whales have been dying in record numbers in the past year in Canada. In 2017, of a population of approximately 450 whales, at least 13 perished in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 
The Gulf of St. Lawrence is not a normal habitat for the right whales. Their arrival last summer took many by surprise. It resulted in Transport Canada imposing a 10-knot limit on vessels 20 metres or more in length. We need to look at ship movement in our oceans and waterways.
The cruise lines have co-operated with these new limits, basically to avoid killing whales and to protect this endangered species. In addition to the 10-knot limit, the cruise ship companies were required to count the number of right whales they saw each day. With the ships slowing down, their crews may be able to count the whales so we know how many are left and how many we are losing. The cruise ships have to report the location of the whales to the government on a regular basis. 
It is clear that this is not enough. That is why Motion No. 154 calls for a study in order to find a solution to this situation. Action needs to be taken immediately. Not only should there be a study, but we need to take action. Hopefully the result of the committee report will give us that opportunity to do so. 
Right whales have been dying in record numbers. In 2017 at least 13 were lost from a community of 450 in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Almost all the North Atlantic whales in the western North Atlantic Ocean in summer and autumn feed in areas off the coast of Canada and the northeastern United States in an area stretching from New York to Newfoundland. It is quite a journey along the east coast for these whales. 
In particular, the popular feeding areas are the Bay of Fundy and Cape Cod Bay. In winter they head south toward Georgia and Florida to give birth. They go to warmer places during the winter to give birth to maintain the population.
The leading cause of death among the North Atlantic right whale, which migrates through some of the world's busiest shipping lanes while journeying off the east coast of the United States and Canada, is being struck by ships. Unfortunately, that is the main reason for the loss in population in the course of time.
At least 16 ship strike deaths were reported between 1970 and 1999, and probably more remain unreported. Records show 16 ship strike deaths in a period of 29 years. That activity should be looked at and monitored.
A second major cause of morbidity and mortality among the north Atlantic right whale is entanglement in plastic fishing gear. Right whales ingest plankton with wide-open mouths, risking entanglement in any rope or net fixed in the water column. Rope wraps around their upper jaws, flippers, and tails. Some are able to escape, but others remain tangled. If they can get the proper help, they can be saved. Again, the possibilities for saving or monitoring that closely are not always there.
In July 1997, the U.S. introduced the Atlantic large whale take reduction plan, which seeks to minimize whale entanglement in fishing gear and to record large whale sightings in an attempt to estimate numbers and distribution. Action is being taken by the United States to study the problem and to look for solutions if possible.
Researchers are still working to pin down how the whales in Canada died. At least three appear to have been hit by ships, and one perished after becoming entangled in fishing gear. 
In 2014, researchers monitoring belugas in the St. Lawrence warned of catastrophic disaster if something was not done to stop the population decline. Records show that we are losing these as well. The number of belugas has gone from 1,000 to 889. What we are looking at in Canada is going below the 500 mark. We are losing this population, and we must do something about it.
At this point, there is not enough evidence and information from researchers to show us the exact number and the exact data on what is happening. An exact count of beluga whales in the St. Lawrence estuary is not there. As I said, the population was estimated to be about 889 in 2012. That is according to a recent Fisheries and Oceans Canada report. When I say recent, I am not sure if it was in 2017-18 or before that.
Motion No. 154 calls on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to undertake a study of the situation of endangered whales and to report the study back to the House of Commons within four months. Hopefully, four months will be enough time for the committee to do a study and call witnesses, researchers, and scientists to find some solutions.
The motion calls on the committee to: 
 (i) identify steps that could be taken to better protect and help the recovery of right, beluga, and killer whales, (ii) identify immediate and longer term improvements limiting the impact of human activities on each of these species and, by so doing, add to recovery efforts and to recommendations for new or enhanced actions, (iii) call expert witnesses on each of the species, hearing from those who might be impacted by any possible actions, and working to find a balance among various competing claims; and that the Committee present its final report to the House within four months of the adoption of this motion. 
I am pleased to say that we will support the motion, and we look forward to studying the issue at committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper. 
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby on a point of order.
Point of OrderMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would indeed like to raise a point of order.
I am rising today to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to apply Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, 2018, no. 1.
In this corner of the House, we believe that this bill is an omnibus bill, as defined under Standing Order 69.1. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and have ruled in the past, Standing Order 69.1 was added to the Standing Orders last June and was supposed to be the government's answer to the abuse of omnibus legislation.
I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, though I know you are well versed in this, that Standing Order 69.1(1) says the following:
 In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage. 
Since the adoption of the Standing Order, we have seen a number of new omnibus bills tabled by the government. Bill C-63, the previous budget implementation bill, was divided for votes at second and third reading, because it contained so many different provisions. Mr. Speaker, you ruled on that.
We also had a huge environmental bill, Bill C-69, that was split for the purposes of voting. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that you ruled that the section on the Navigable Waters Protection Act was distinct enough from the rest of that environment bill to split it.
We have serious concerns, and all parliamentarians should have serious concerns, about the use of omnibus bills in this place. It becomes increasingly difficult for members of Parliament to represent their constituents when governments table these massive bills, in which so many different things are lumped together.
Bill C-74 poses a particularly problematic situation. This massive bill is over 555 pages long and affects over 40 different acts. It is clearly an omnibus bill because it deals with matters as diverse as veterans' compensation, changes to the Parliament Act with respect to maternity and parental arrangements, and the establishment of the office of the chief information officer of Canada. This is, in fact, the most massive budget bill ever. 
What worries us most, however, is that this budget implementation bill enacts the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act.
Mr. Speaker, you are aware, of course, that the second paragraph, Standing Order 69.1(2), stipulates:
 The present Standing Order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation. 
We looked through the budget speech, the budget documentation, the tax tables, and everything else that was tabled with the budget in February. The only reference to carbon pricing in the budget documents is a few short paragraphs, including the following:
 The Government recently released draft legislative proposals on the federal carbon pollution pricing system, as well as a regulatory framework outlining the approach to carbon pollution pricing for large industrial facilities, and intends to introduce legislation to establish that system. 
In that short paragraph, there is an acknowledgement that the government actually was working on separate legislation that should properly be put to the House separately. Of course, in terms of the spirit of Standing Order 69.1, the fact that this draft legislation was developed separately, and that the government even seemed to indicate a propensity to introduce that legislation separately, should give cause for consideration in terms of Standing Order 69.1, because it has an impact on all of us as members of Parliament being able to adequately represent our constituents.
Because of those few paragraphs, the Liberals—the government—felt justified in including the brand-new greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, a bill that takes up 215 pages of the budget bill, 215 of 556 pages.
The issue is that the government intended to introduce legislation to establish this system. This indicates that the intention was to have separate legislation on the subject. A federal carbon pollution pricing system is a big step that deserves to be properly studied, looked at, and voted on by parliamentarians.
Mr. Speaker, I will remind you of your ruling of March 1, 2018, on Bill C-69, when you said the following:
 the question the Chair must ask itself is whether the purpose of the standing order was to deal only with matters that were obviously unrelated or whether it was to provide members with the opportunity to pronounce themselves on specific initiatives when a bill contains a variety of different measures. 
At that time, you answered very appropriately and courageously, establishing the precedent for separating that bill out so that members of Parliament could have the opportunity to adequately represent their constituents through that separate vote.
I also want to quote the Minister of Public Safety, who said the following with respect to the issue of omnibus legislation, and I could not agree with him more:
 The Liberals did in fact condemn the Conservatives' repeated use of omnibus bills as undemocratic. Now that they are in power, they are using some of the very tactics they criticized. Here is what the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said about the Conservatives' 2012 budget implementation bill when he was in the opposition:
He further stated:
 On the procedural point, so-called omnibus bills obviously bundle several different measures together. Within reasonable limits, such legislation can be managed through Parliament if the bill is coherent, meaning that all the different topics are interrelated and interdependent and if the overall volume of the bill is not overwhelming. That was the case before the government came to power in 2006. 
That was the Minister of Public Safety, speaking in 2012, commenting on the previous Conservative government. He went on:
 When omnibus bills were previously used to implement key provisions of federal budgets, they averaged fewer than 75 pages in length and typically amended a handful of laws directly related to budgetary policy. In other words, they were coherent and not overwhelming. 
 However, under this regime the practice has changed. Omnibus bills since 2006 have averaged well over 300 pages, more than four times the previous norm. This latest one introduced last week had 556 sections, filled 443 pages and touched on 30 or more disconnected topics, everything from navigable waters to grain inspection, from disability plans to hazardous materials. 
That was the previous record before the budget implementation act of a few weeks ago.
TheMinister of Public Safety completed his comments by stating:
 It is a complete dog's breakfast, and deliberately so. It is calculated to be so humongous and so convoluted, all in a single lump, that it cannot be intelligently examined and digested by a conscientious Parliament. 
I could not agree more with the current Liberal Minister of Public Safety in condemning what the impact is on parliamentarians of having these dog's breakfast omnibus bills. As members know, the current budget implementation bill is the largest we have ever seen dumped on the floor of the House of Commons, and 215 pages are on carbon pricing. This clearly violates the spirit of Standing Order 69.1.
As the Speaker, it clearly gives you the opportunity, despite the loophole I am sure the government House leader or the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will try to use, to justify what is unjustifiable.
There is long precedence in this place that we try to make sure that our votes count and that legislation is distinct enough so that as members of Parliament, we have the ability to truly represent our constituents.
This dumping in of 215 pages around carbon pricing to make the most massive budget implementation act in Canadian history simply violates to every degree the spirit and the principles around Standing Order 69.1.
You have ruled in the past on these important measures, Mr. Speaker. You have taken the opportunity to judge whether parliamentarians, or parliament, or ultimately Canadians are well served by this dumping in of legislation. It started under the previous government. Standing Order 69.1 was designed to give you the tools to counter that abuse by governments of dumping in separate legislation. There is no doubt that the government is violating the spirit of Standing Order 69.1 by dumping in carbon pricing into this massive bill.
 What I ask you to do today, Mr. Speaker, is to take the time to consider what I have said, and other members may choose to join in as well, and ultimately to rule to separate out carbon pricing so, as members of Parliament, we can truly represent our constituents.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and for the precision and clarity of his arguments. We will take this under advisement and get back to the House in due course, and fairly soon.

Government Orders
Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1Hon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and 
 That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. 

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.
 I invite hon. members, in the usual way that we do, to indicate how many might wish to participate in the 30-minute question period, and I think we get a sense of that. We will confine the interventions to around one minute, both for the member posing a question and for the government response.
The hon. opposition House leader.
Hon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have the government shutting down debate on its budget implementation act, a budget that has not bothered to mention NAFTA, a budget that has no plan to pay down the massive deficit it will give to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and a budget that will implement a carbon tax, which the government is covering up not only the cost of to Canadians but of the effect it will or will not have.
 Today, the PBO told us that the carbon tax would have a cost to the GDP of $10 billion by 2022. Will the Minister of Finance tell us today how much this carbon tax will cost everyday Canadians? Would he please be upfront, stop the cover-up, and tell us once and for all?
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer questions on Bill C-74 today, and to address the fact that we are moving forward on a plan that will continue the very positive economic results we have seen over the last two and a half years. It is not by accident that Canada has now had the fastest growth among G7 countries over the last year and a half. It has truly been a remarkable turnaround from the 10 years before, when we saw ourselves in a very difficult growth situation, engineered by the previous government's lack of investing in Canadians.
We are now in a position of having among the lowest unemployment rates we have seen in 40 years. Our plan to continue our economic success put forward in Bill C-74 is an important one in order to continue the good results for Canadian families. As well, it will continue our mission and approach to ensuring we deal with climate change over the long run. It is a responsible approach that we know will be positive for Canadians today, tomorrow, and in the long run.
Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to express the profound disappointment I have, and I think a lot of the members on this side of the House have, with the government. It promised during the election that it would be different, that it would respect Parliament, and that it would ensure we all would have a voice and input. What it is doing today is muzzling our voice, not letting us represent our constituents, being that strong voice for our constituents in the House of Commons.
It is disappointing because this budget implementation act is 556 pages. It is huge, omnibus, obese legislation. It is really important we study it and have a healthy debate in the House of Commons.
If the government is so proud of the budget, why is it muzzling debate in the House of Commons?
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the bill has been debated in the House for four days. Forty-five members of Parliament have spoken to the bill, which includes 13 members of the Conservative Party, six members of the New Democratic Party, and of course one member from the Green Party. It is important that we have had that sort of discussion. We know as well that we will be able to then move the bill from this format into committee, where we can continue to ensure we have discussion.
 We believe this is an important way for us to move forward on the agenda that will help Canadians be successful in the future. Clearly, what has happened in the last couple of years is that the kinds of measures we have put in place have been positive for our economy. Now we want to ensure that positive direction continues. This bill is the way to ensure that happens. The debate that has gone on has been important, and now we can move it to committee so we can continue that debate.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today the Parliamentary Budget Officer produced a report in which he calculated that the Liberal carbon tax would erase $10 billion a year from our economy. The finance minister thus far has refused to reveal how much the average family will pay for his carbon tax. Two hundred pages of the bill before the House today deal with the implementation of that very tax.
If the minister is able to put 200 pages of complicated rules, regulations, and taxes into the bill, why can he not stand now and answer this simple question. How much will the Liberal carbon tax cost the average Canadian family? How much?
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to talk about why we think pricing carbon is the right way to go. The reality of our situation is that climate change has real costs. Climate change is expected to cost Canada's economy $5 billion a year by 2020. We know that as much as $43 billion a year will be expended by 2050. That is if we do not take action.
We know the appropriate way for us to deal with this is to price carbon. That is why we have come forward with an approach to do this. It has been proved in a province like British Columbia that it can be done in a way consistent with continuing to successfully grow the economy.
We know that to ensure we have a long-term situation where our economy remains healthy, we price the things we do not want, such as pollution, while we encourage the activities we want, such as investing in clean technology over the long run. These things will most certainly go forward with our approach. We know that will help us continue the very positive economic situation we have engineered over the last two and a half years.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, how ironic. I stood just a few minutes ago and raised a point of order, which you will be considering, given the size and scope of the fattest, most obese omnibus legislation in Canadian history. Just a few minutes after that, the Liberals moved closure to shut down debate. It is absolutely absurd for Canadians who believed the Liberals when they made commitments to be different in Parliament. We are seeing the Liberals act like the Harper government on steroids. What is going on here is absolutely and profoundly disrespectful to Parliament. Closure is being invoked on the most massive budget implementation act in Canadian history.
 We know why the Liberals are moving closure. It is because, as debate started, we found out that pharmacare was just a study, that they were not going to implement it, and pay equity was not mentioned anywhere in the budget implementation act. Is that not the real reason they are invoking closure because the Liberals do not want Canadians to know what is not in the budget implementation act?
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to be clear with Canadians on what we are trying to achieve.
We are trying to achieve the continuation of the positive economic results we have seen over the last two and a half years. Two and a half years ago, we were facing stubborn unemployment. We had a situation where the growth rates we had seen over the decade before were the lowest since the depths of the great recession. We said we would move forward on investing in Canadians to ensure we had good, well-paying jobs for Canadians and families to be successful. That is exactly what has happened. 
Through our investments over the last two and a half years, we have engendered a real change in our economic situation. This bill will continue that approach, and we have done that in a respectful way. We have had four days of debate on the bill. Forty-five members of the House have had the opportunity to debate the bill, including six members of the NDP. We now know that it is best for it go to committee so we can move forward with the agenda that is right for Canadians.
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one particularly good thing in this year's budget is the substantial increase to the Canada workers benefit. One of the biggest complaints I hear from business owners when I am walking around my riding has to do with finding skilled workers.
We must expand the labour market and make choosing to work more appealing. Social assistance makes this choice very difficult, but people rely on this assistance, and we obviously do not want to lose it.
I therefore thank my colleague, the Minister of Finance, for this significant increase. 
Why does he think it is so important to enhance the Canada workers benefit?
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, what a great question.
It is important for us and for our country. It is obviously important to encourage all Canadians to join the labour force. We know that people who are struggling often find it challenging to start working.
This is why the Canada workers benefit is so important. It will give people joining the labour force financial assistance until they are earning enough money to meet their families' needs. We enhanced this benefit so that it can continue to have a significant impact. Not only will this measure have a more significant impact on our economy, since there will be more workers, but it will also help families that are struggling.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I had higher hopes coming into the House of Commons this morning. After the Liberal Party met with its delegates from across Canada this past week, I thought the Liberals would have at least listened to their delegates tell them not to treat Parliament with such great contempt. Even with the sunshine outside, I would have hoped that some of that would have found its way in here. The sunny ways have disappeared. 
My question for the finance minister and the leader of the House in Parliament is this. Why cut off debate on this important information? There are 540 pages that deal with the expenditures for the country. Is it (a) because they are embarrassed that over 90% of middle-class families, which the Liberals supposedly support, are actually paying higher taxes; or (b) because they are raising taxes on small businesses; or (c) because this morning the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that not only would the deficit be $18 billion for this year, but it would be $22 billion, $4 billion higher than they estimated just in February? It is out of control. 
Is it (a), (b), or (c), or are the Liberals embarrassed in all of the above?
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important that we have the opportunity to talk about this in the House. That is why we have spent four days debating Bill C-74. We think as well it is important that we go to the committee so that we can do a deeper dive.
To the specific questions, I think it is important to recognize what has actually happened over the last two and a half years. We find ourselves in a situation where our economy is in very good shape because, in the first instance, nine out of 10 families with children have significantly more money to invest in their families. That provides a spark plug for our economy which helps us to be in a better situation. Facts matter, and the facts are that two and a half years later, we have significantly lower employment and significantly higher growth.
 We will continue on that approach of making sure the taxes for middle-class Canadians are low. As well, with respect to the member's question (b), we will continue our support for small business. We have lowered small business taxes. As of January 1, 2018, those small business taxes went down, and they will go down again on January 1, 2019. We think it is important to ensure that our economy continues to be strong.
Finally, we want to assure Canadians that we will continue our fiscally responsible approach to reduce our net debt-to-GDP ratio over time. This puts us in a very positive situation right now and also makes us resilient to deal with any challenges in the future.
Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will tell the minister what the facts are. The fact is that we are a laughing stock internationally, because we cannot apply taxes to OTTs, and stuff like that. This is a joke. 
These are the facts that you are presenting to me this morning, and you know very well that we are late on these taxes. He is looking at me like he does not understand.
The truth is that the minister—
The Deputy Speaker: Once again I would ask all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair in all speeches made in the House. The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
Pierre Nantel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are quite right.
 It is shameful that the European community's finance minister had to come to Canada to tell us that Canada's decision not to tax web giants is untenable.
If the minister would come to my community, Longueuil, he would see the situation facing community groups taking care of refugees crossing the border. Despite the minister's utter gall in saying the government is taking care of refugees, he would actually see how difficult things are for the community groups.
It is a travesty that this government is eliminating tax credits for public transit and committing atrocities like this one here today.
I therefore have to ask, why did the government decide to limit debate on this today? Is it because suddenly its spin doctors and media relations staff can no longer explain the government's bad decisions?
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. It is very important for us to work with our counterparts in other countries and discuss corporate and personal taxation in an international context. I was at the G20 and the G7 last week, and I can tell you that we are working together to figure out a tax system that works around the world. The OECD has produced an important report that helps countries consider how to tax companies in the digital sector. It is a crucial issue. The report offers an explanation of the current situation as well as a vision of what the international tax landscape might look like in the future. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we are working together, because cooperation in international matters is the only way to go. We are clearly leading the way on the world stage, and we will continue working with other countries to find an appropriate solution.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised in the last election that this year's deficit would be $6 billion. The finance minister said a few months ago that it would be $18 billion. Today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it is now $22 billion. In other words, the deficit is going to be more than three times bigger than the Prime Minister promised and 20% bigger than the finance minister said only a few weeks ago. 
My question is simple. How did the finance minister get it so wrong?
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I appreciate the reports that come from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It is an important function of Parliament that he comes out with reports. 
I can also say that the numbers we put out in our budget remain exactly what we think our estimates will be. We have taken an approach over the last two and a half years to very clearly enunciate how we are going to make investments so that we can grow the economy, and how we are going to be able to do that in a fiscally responsible way.
Each year we have shown where those investments are going, and we have projected what might happen in terms of the growth that would come from those investments. In fact, the growth has been stronger than expected. Canadians have had a better situation in terms of job creation. Hard-working Canadians are creating jobs at a record pace, and we are in the lowest rate of unemployment that we have seen in about 40 years. It is an extremely positive situation for Canadian families as they consider how to raise their children.
We are going to continue with those investments. We are going to do it in a responsible way, while reducing our debt-to-GDP ratio over time so that we can always be prepared for the future for Canadians.
Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is disheartening to see that every day there is another broken promise from this Liberal government. 
The Liberals promised they would not do omnibus bills and here we have a 540-page document to look through. They promised they were not going to run more than $6 billion of deficit this year, but we have just heard that it is likely to be $22 billion, despite their predictions that it was only going to be $18 billion. We see these kinds of broken promises going on, and we hear the finance minister say, “Yes, but we had four days of debate.” If one divides $22 billion by four, that is $5.5 billion. Is it worth taking more than a day to discuss the spending of $5.5 billion of taxpayer money?
 Why does the finance minister have so much trouble keeping his promises and making his budget targets?
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to consider the promises that we made and the promises that have been kept. We promised Canadians that we would lower middle-class taxes. The members opposite voted against lowering middle-class taxes, but we went ahead and kept that promise. We promised that we would ensure the Canada child benefit did not go to the wealthiest so that we could give more to families. Nine out of 10 families have significantly more, on average $2,300 more, which is now indexed to inflation so that they can raise their families. These are promises kept.
What we put in this budget, of course, are some new promises. We said that the Canada child benefit will keep up with inflation. We said that the Canada workers benefit will help those in the most challenged situation to do better over time. We are keeping our promises to Canadians. What we are doing with Bill C-74 is making sure that we continue with these positive economic results. We have had four days of debate on this bill. We think it is appropriate for the bill to go to committee so that we can examine it in more detail. That is responsible.
Pierre Nantel: The Minister of Finance takes us for fools, Mr. Speaker; how very sad. Liberal spin doctors have been working to throw us off the scent for a long time now. The minister knows perfectly well that it is unacceptable that the services in question are not subject to any transaction tax, which includes GST, QST, and the other provincial harmonized taxes. 
Because of this, we are the laughingstock of the international community. We were led to believe that this issue would be discussed at the G7 summit in Charlevoix, and the Liberals are definitely going to be laughed at if they bring it up, because everybody in the entire world charges tax on services. 
I wonder why the Minister of Finance is acting like nothing is wrong and evading the issue by saying it will be discussed. Give me a break. Last week, the European Union's finance minister said it was an untenable position. I would like to get an answer in that regard.
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, I urge the hon. member to familiarize himself with the OECD's reports. We are working with the other countries on possibly creating an international tax system that works. It is very important. We know that international companies have many options as to where they will invest their money. That is why we need to work together and that is what we are doing.
 I was with G20 and G7 representatives last week and I can assure the House that we will continue to work together on finding a solution. These things take time, of course, because we have to do our due diligence to ensure that major investments continue to be made. In the meantime, we will continue to ensure that the system performs well in the future.
Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I find it disgraceful that the government is moving to end debate on the budget. If we keep in mind that for every day we have debated the budget it has cost Canadians about $5.5 billion of debt, maybe cutting off a day will save Canadians money.
The PBO report said that international growth is going to be 4% this year and 4% next year. That comes from the OECD. For the U.S., it is going to be 2.8% and 2.4% real GDP growth. Canada lags behind at 1.9% and 1.9%. 
Considering we are falling behind a booming economy around the world, and rather than just accepting falling further behind, I am curious as to why the government would choose to end debate instead of discussing ways to increase our economy.
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to speak up for how great Canada is doing. We are in a fantastic situation internationally. The member opposite can talk about his hypothetical idea of where the future may or may not be going, but what we can do instead is rely on facts. 
What are the facts? The facts are that since this government has had the opportunity to come into office, we have made investments. Since this government has come into office, the rate of growth in this country has increased significantly. We only need to look at the last year and a half to say that Canada has grown faster than any other G7 country. That is just a fact. 
We only need to look at what has happened in unemployment over the last two and a half years to say that we are at the lowest unemployment rate we have seen in 40 years. That includes the entire period of time the previous government was in office.
As we consider facts, let us think about the real facts. These are the real facts that Canadians are experiencing today. 
We are going to continue with positive economic results by putting forward Bill C-74.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, over the years I have witnessed budgetary measures that continue to support and enhance Canada's middle class and those who want to be part of it and the impact that has had in getting Canadians involved in the success stories that the Minister of Finance is talking about.
I am wondering if the Minister of Finance could provide some thoughts on how we as a government are able to work with Canadians to increase their disposable income and how that is fostering a healthier economy.
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, when we get really positive results, we go back and see what actually happened to get ourselves those positive results, because clearly, we want to do more of that.
What has changed over the last two and a half years? Middle-class taxes have gone down. The Canada child benefit has gone up. Canadians have had the ability to invest more in their families, and as a result, our economy has done better. These are just the facts. The economy has done better. We have lower rates of unemployment. As we looked at that, we said to ourselves that we want to make sure we continue to advantage Canadian families. 
That is why we indexed the Canada child benefit, so that benefit can keep up with the cost of inflation. 
That is why we also introduced the Canada workers benefit. We took what was there before, the working income tax benefit, and improved it and added funds to it, so that there would be more of an incentive for people to get into the workforce. In addition, we made it automatic, so that people who were not getting it before would have a greater incentive to get into the workforce. What we are going to see from this is not only an increase in the size of the workforce but increased potential for our economic growth. 
That is how we are going to continue with the very positive last two and a half years through the course of the next period that Bill C-74 represents.
Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby South, NDP): Mr. Speaker, over the last two weeks, there have been debates about pipeline construction. I am wondering if the finance minister can tell us whether he supports Alberta's legislation to throttle pipelines within that province.
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, we see the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline to be an important issue for Canadians, for Canadian jobs, and to grow our economy over the long term. It is something we are putting in place because we believe that to be the case. We approved it after a robust environmental review, after talking with indigenous Canadians, and after putting in place an oceans protection plan. 
Our view is that the project needs to go forward. That is why we are moving forward with it. As we do that, we are not going to be throwing around threats to anybody across the country. We are going to try to find a productive way to get to the best solution that will allow us to assure that this important economic project goes forward.
Ziad Aboultaif: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister and wondered which Canada he was talking about. I am from Alberta. When I go to the GTA and talk with businesses, people are uncomfortable. Taxes are on the rise. He is talking about job creation, but he does not tell Canadians how he increased the size of government. He is buying jobs. He has borrowed $80 billion in the last two and a half years, which means, doing the math, that he should be able to create close to one million jobs.
How can the minister claim that he is improving the economy while people in Alberta and other provinces are complaining and suffering?
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, simply said, the member opposite has pretty well every number wrong. Over the last two and a half years, we have had a turnaround in growth in our country. We have seen an increase in the number of jobs, with over 600,000 new jobs. We have actually seen that the economy in Alberta is starting to produce more jobs. What we are seeing across the country is that there are places where we are doing very well, and there are places that are recovering. We are going to continue with our investments to make sure the entire country does well.
 We will not in any way accept erroneous statistics. The fact is that middle-class taxes have gone down, small business taxes have gone down, our economy has grown, and more Canadians are working. This is all positive. We are going to continue on our track to make sure this is the case for Canadians.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I can see why the minister wants to end the debate. Every time I ask him a question about the fact that Internet services are not subject to sales tax and GST, he goes on about taxing those companies, which will obviously require a great deal of coordinated effort on the global stage. However, he knows full well that I am talking about the GST and provincial sales tax, but he keeps denying and deflecting. I can see why he does not want to debate the issue for too long. He is concerned that he will eventually have to stay on topic.
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to be truthful. In Canada, the tax system is working. We will continue to do what we must in order to ensure that the system is working here, in Canada. However, at the same time, we must collaborate with our counterparts in other countries to consider how the international system will continue to operate. That is very important. We will continue with our approach because it is the only way to ensure that the system works in the future. 
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. 
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Deputy Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Deputy Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Deputy Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Call in the members.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #650
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. 
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because of proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in reply to the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby with regard to Bill C-74. In his arguments, the hon. member correctly stated that Standing Order 69.1 permits the splitting of votes on bills considered as omnibus legislation. As my hon. colleague also indicated, Standing Order 69.1(2) states that: 
 The present Standing Order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation. 
As the hon. member stated, the carbon pricing initiative was mentioned in the budget tabled on February 27. If one looks at page 151, one will find a section called “Pricing Carbon Pollution and Supporting Clean Growth”, which as my hon. colleague indicated, specifies our government's intention to introduce carbon pricing legislation.
As such, I disagree with my hon. colleague that the current legislation goes against the spirit of Standing Order 69.1. Consequently, I respectfully submit that Bill C-74 should not be split into multiple votes.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary, in this case for his timely intervention on the matter. I will get back to the House in due course on the question that was raised by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
When the House last took up debate on the question before the House, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton had five minutes remaining for questions and comments. Therefore, we will go to that now.
Marilyn Gladu: Mr. Speaker, the question I have for my colleague has to do with the record of the Liberal government chronically breaking its promises. The Liberals were elected on a promise to run a small $10-billion deficit. They promised that this year's deficit would be only $6 billion, and it is more than three times that. They promised no omnibus bills, yet we see that. Could the member comment on how he sees the current government's ability to keep its promises?
Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation act is a product of the Prime Minister saying one thing during the election and then doing quite another. He said he would never, ever introduce an omnibus bill, and here we have a 500-plus page omnibus bill. It was the second omnibus bill introduced in a single week by the current government. So much for that promise.
As the member for Sarnia—Lambton rightfully pointed out, the Prime Minister said that he would run three years of so-called small deficits. In the first year, it was twice as much, and in the second year it was twice as much. This year, the deficit was three times larger than what he promised. With respect to the commitment to balance the budget in 2019, instead of a four-year plan, the Prime Minister has replaced it with a 30-year plan.
 It seems that the only promise the Prime Minister has been able to keep is the legalization of marijuana. 
Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I happened to be in the House when the member for St. Albert—Edmonton made his comments when we last spoke to this. If I remember correctly, I believe he started off by saying that the Liberal Party won the jackpot when we won the election because of this amazing fictitious surplus that the Conservatives had left behind. He went on to say that we currently have a fiscal train wreck. However, the reality of the situation is that Canada currently has the best growth in GDP among the G7 countries. The difference between what the current government has done and what the previous government did is that instead of investing in gazebos and helicopter trips to private cottages, we are investing in things that are changing lives. We are investing in people and the resources to improve their skills and give them what they need to truly succeed. 
Therefore, I ask the member opposite, how could he possibly say we have a fiscal train wreck when we have the best growth among the G7 countries?
Michael Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands had listened to my speech, he would know that I alluded to the fact that in the first two years under Prime Minister Harper, we paid down nearly $40 billion in debt, which was the largest debt repayment in modern Canadian history by any government. We led Canada through the toughest economic times since the 1930s through to a balanced budget, which the current government inherited. By contrast, the current Liberal government has run massive deficits, a sea of red ink, $500 million of additional debt over the next 20 years. When comparing the record of Stephen Harper and the current government, I would take the record of Stephen Harper any day.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague's words are always encouraging, and I find him very inspirational when he does a speech in the House. I would like him to comment on something that is of particular importance to me. I am the MP for Oshawa, which manufactures. We are stuck with what John Manley, who used to be the Liberal finance minister, said was a lack of things in this budget to address the competitiveness problem. In Oshawa, we are fighting against the highest electrical rates, this new carbon tax, all kinds of different taxes, while the American government is taking an aggressive route to increasing competitiveness.
Could he comment on the requirement to address the competitiveness issue and what it is going to do to Canada unless the government gets moving on it?
Michael Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the member for Oshawa raises a very good point. What the Liberal government has failed to do is address and respond to the North American reality where our largest trading partner and competitor is cutting taxes and rolling back regulations. Instead, the government is increasing red tape and taxes, which is putting Canada in a competitive disadvantage. Nothing could be worse than the government's tax on everything. For example, there is massive carbon tax, which, by the way, is going to do absolutely nothing to reduce GHGs. The Conference Board of Canada estimates that at $200 per tonne, carbon emissions would be reduced by just 1.5%. By contrast, under Stephen Harper, when we took a responsible sector-by-sector approach, we reduced GHGs by 3.1%.
Mr. William Amos (Pontiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-74 and budget 2018 today. This plan will help increase growth in urban communities in Pontiac and our rural communities, and will make them more prosperous. I feel engaged and inspired by the potential to make our country more equal for Canadian men and women. I am very proud of our government and this bill. This plan is based on the principles of growth, reconciliation, advancement, and equality. I would like to talk about some of budget's many initiatives that are particularly important to Pontiac.
I want to start with the assistance that workers will receive through the Canada workers benefit. There are many low-income workers in the riding of Pontiac, especially in the rural areas, but also in our communities in Gatineau. For example, in 2014, the average salary in the RMC of Pontiac was $32,556 per year. In the RMC of la Vallée-de-la-Gatineau, the average yearly salary was $28,603. Some people in our riding are really struggling. The Gatineau valley has the highest level of low-income families, at 14.4%.
I was so pleased when I saw that the government introduced in the budget the Canada workers benefit, which will take effect in 2019. Thanks to this benefit, low-income workers who earn $15,000 a year will have nearly $500 more in their pockets. That is important for the people in my riding of Pontiac. The Canada Revenue Agency will automatically establish eligibility, which will ensure that 300,000 additional low-income workers receive the Canada workers benefit.
Seasonal workers are another important issue. In Pontiac, many people work in the outfitting, forestry, and ecotourism sectors. Many municipal officials in the Pontiac area approached me about the shortcomings they have seen in the employment insurance system. I am thinking in particular of the mayor of Montcerf-Lytton, Alain Fortin, and the Gatineau Valley council of mayors. Our government listened to what they had to say, and it will invest $230 million over two years to improve the situation of seasonal workers who depend on employment insurance in the off-season. The terms and conditions will be presented in the coming months following discussions with the provinces. Simply put, this measure responds directly to the needs and requests of people in the Pontiac region who work in the forestry, outfitting, and tourism sectors.
Another very important issue in my riding is Phoenix. I am personally very concerned about the Phoenix pay system and so are many people in my riding. It affects far too many residents of Pontiac. No one should have to worry about being paid incorrectly or not at all. As members know, our government inherited the Phoenix pay system, a project that was poorly managed from the outset, before we took office. The previous government demonstrated a lack of governance and oversight, failed to allocate adequate technical and human resources, and used a poor change management strategy, which led to problems with the launch of the Phoenix pay system.
Nevertheless, we understand the urgency and the magnitude of the problem, and we know that it is up to us to fix it. Our government is doing everything in its power to ensure that federal employees are always paid on time. We have already taken a number of measures, such as steadily increasing the number of employees who process pay transactions.
The federal government has hired approximately 561 employees in recent months to make the Phoenix pay system work better. In budget 2018, I was pleased to see that our government is continuing to allocate resources to resolve this problem. Budget 2018 proposes an investment of $431 million to continue to address the problems with Phoenix, including the hiring of additional employees to support the system. The government is also proposing to invest $16 million over two years to work on the next steps of implementing a new pay system with the help of experts, federal public sector unions, and technology providers.
I hope that our government will finally be able to resolve this problem. When I knock on my constituents' doors, they ask me to do something about this. I will be there for them, and I will continue to work to resolve the problems with the Phoenix pay system.
With respect to official languages, as I am sure everyone knows, Pontiac is a very bilingual region. Both the francophone and the anglophone communities have a lot of cultural activities going on. I was pleased to see that the 2018 budget includes $400 million in new funding over five years to support the 2018-23 action plan for official languages. That includes funding for English and French community newspapers and radio stations in minority communities. There will also be money to provide better access to official language services for anglophone communities in Quebec as well as funding for local cultural activities, which are very important in ridings like Pontiac.
On the issue of environment and conservation, earlier this year, as the media reported significantly, 116 of our parliamentary colleagues signed a letter that I had the privilege of drafting, sent it to the finance minister and to the Prime Minister, and urged them to deliver a budget that would allow us to achieve our commitments under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to protect 17% of our terrestrial land mass and 10% of our ocean by 2020. I was so proud of members opposite, members from our party, and senators.
These are really important commitments. This is one of the issues that most motivated me to run for office. I was so proud of the finance minister, the Prime Minister, and our government for making the decision to invest a historic amount of $1.3 billion over five years to conserve Canada's ecosystems, landscapes, and biodiversity. This budget, on this measure alone, is an incredible victory for all of Canada.
In addition to thanking the Prime Minister, I would like to thank a number of people in our community of Pontiac, in particular Alison Woodley and Éric Hébert-Daly from CPAWS, who worked so hard on this issue. This achievement is theirs as well.
I would also like to thank all the parks and wildlife officials working in the federal civil service, who, for so many years, desperately needed this kind of investment. It really is a big boost, and I would like to thank them for working so hard on this issue for so many years. We all know that conserving our environmental heritage is an issue that transcends partisan politics. Canadians believe in it, and we have stepped up to do it.
On infrastructure, I was so pleased when the federal government announced that it would increase its portion of financial support for rural infrastructure projects up to 60%. This would allow communities of fewer than 5,000 people to tap into an extra percentage of funding from the federal government so that we can move beyond the formula of one-third, one-third, one-third, where municipalities have to pay one third of the cost. For small municipalities in the Pontiac, that kind of contribution is crucially important.
I want to give credit where it is due, to our infrastructure minister, who made that decision and is now working with the provinces so that our small municipalities do not get left behind in terms of infrastructure investments. 
Regarding the Internet, when I knock on doors in the Pontiac, this is the number one topic. This is what people want fixed. It is an infrastructure issue for sure, but it is also an issue of democracy and socio-economic development. I am absolutely convinced that we are going in the right direction.
I would like to highlight the fact that we have doubled down on our $500 million over five years. The connect to innovate program has already delivered results in the Pontiac, but this budget brought forward something more: $100 million over five years to update to the next generation of broadband Internet services in rural regions, using new satellite technologies. This is good news, and I am looking forward to making more announcements like the $6.7 million that was just announced in the Gatineau valley. There is more good news to come about the Internet in Pontiac, and I look forward to working hard. 
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, at different times throughout my colleague's speech, he mentioned that he was proud of, or pleased with, the budget. I would like to ask my colleague if he is proud of the fact that during the campaign the Liberals promised vociferously that they would never introduce omnibus legislation, use time allocation, or go beyond $10 billion in deficit, and yet here we have an $18-billion deficit in the budget. Worse than that, just today we found out from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that it is not $18 billion; it is $22 billion. Between February and today, we have increased our deficit by $4 billion.
Let us think of the amount of money that is going out the window each year just to pay the interest. Currently, we spend $26 billion a year on interest, and by 2021 that will be $33 billion, with no plan to balance the budget. Is he proud of that?
William Amos: Mr. Speaker, I will answer in a very Pontiac manner. The riding of Pontiac, where the average median income in a number of major sections hovers around $30,000 a year, desperately needs investment. Our government committed to investing, and that is one of the biggest reasons why this riding went Liberal in the last election. The simple fact of the matter is that for 10 years Pontiac was starved of federal investment. Voters in Pontiac know that the debt-to-GDP ratio is declining very rapidly. This is managed investment that is absolutely going to help pick up jobs and help support families. When the Canada child benefit comes every month to the many thousands of families that desperately need help, the single mothers and the single fathers, the families living on the edge in the Pontiac, boy, are they happy that we are making those investments.
Hon. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really want to commend my colleague from Pontiac. I had the privilege of chairing the national capital region caucus, which embraces his riding. It is a very beautiful place, but as he mentioned in his speech, there are a lot of needs, and there are a lot of folks who are on the edge, so to speak.
I want to ask him specifically about the Canada child benefit. Recently, I came across a constituent in tears in my riding, who said to me that without the Canada child benefit, she, a single mother of two, would not be receiving an additional $9,000 a year of tax-free support. We are trying as best we can to help eliminate the scourge of poverty. We are trying to reach up and meet the sustainable development goals, one of which is to leave no one behind. That is something very important. I believe that only a foolish society would let people slip further and further behind.
I want to ask my colleague how he feels about the Canada child benefit in the context of his beautiful riding of Pontiac and its needs.
William Amos: Mr. Speaker, my learned colleague has been a mentor to me over many years.
The simple fact is that Pontiac families desperately need the Canada child benefit. Specifically, 23,190 children are being supported, and there are 12,600-odd payments. The average payment is $540, tax-free. At the end of the day, yes, this is about poverty alleviation, and we are doing a great job on that, but it is about more than just that, more than our families. This is about supporting small businesses across the Pontiac. What does a family in need do when they get those monthly payments? They go straight to the grocery store, the sports equipment store, or the bookstore, and they invest for their families. That is what makes our small-town economies roll.
At the end of the day, the Pontiac needs support. That is what they said time and time again, and they are not going to stop saying it, because we are a region with many rural communities in need. I am not going to stop defending them until the day of the next election, and hopefully thereafter, because this is just too great an opportunity to make a difference in families' lives.
The Deputy Speaker: Before we resume debate and go to the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton, I will let her know that we have only about three or four minutes before we have to interrupt for the usual statements by members. She will have the remaining time when the House next gets back to debate on the question.
Marilyn Gladu: Mr. Speaker, I guess I should consider myself lucky to be speaking to the budget bill, Bill C-74. I say that because many of my colleagues will not have the opportunity to do that. The Liberal government has once again shut down debate, and this is an important bill. 
It is bad enough that the government was planning to spend $18 billion in deficit this year, but we have found out from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that now it is going to be $22 billion. It seems to me that we should take more than one day for each $5.5 billion of Canadian taxpayer money that is going to be spent by the government. I am very disheartened that the Liberal government would once again shut down debate.
In the small amount of time I have, I want to cover a few things: infrastructure, some issues with the border, health, seniors, and a number of my concerns about the tax changes that have been announced.
With respect to infrastructure, the Liberal government was elected on a promise that it would run tiny deficits and put money into infrastructure in municipalities. Here we are, and it has not spent even 40% of the money that has been pledged. On top of that, the government took $15 billion away from municipalities to put it into an infrastructure bank that is not going to build roads and bridges in communities like mine.
I had a project in my community that was going to create 3,000 well-paying jobs. It was called the oversized load corridor project. I discussed this project with the Minister of Infrastructure for nearly three years. He said the government was in support of the project. The province was in support. The municipality was in support. I needed $6 million from the federal government in infrastructure money to create 3,000 well-paying jobs in Sarnia—Lambton. The government told me to wait for the trade corridor funding, which was coming. Then it put the Minister of Transport in charge of that fund, and I have just found out that he will not give $6 million of infrastructure money to Sarnia—Lambton to create 3,000 Canadian jobs. 
I am not sure what kind of priorities the government has when it cannot fund 3,000 jobs with just $6 million. It spent $10 million to put an ice rink on Parliament Hill, which created zero long-term Canadian jobs. When it comes to infrastructure spending, I certainly think there is a big problem.
The Sombra ferry in my riding is a border crossing. The other thing I would say with respect to infrastructure is that the government seems to be able to put hundreds of millions of dollars in the budget to support illegal immigrants, but it cannot put $2 million in the budget to restore the border crossing at the Sombra ferry. Once again, I feel that the Liberal government's priorities are terrible. 
In the words that have been said so often in this chamber, “never has a government spent so much to accomplish so little.”
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton will have seven minutes remaining in her remarks when the House next gets back to the question.
Now we will go to statements by members. The hon. member for Montcalm.

Statements By Members
Bill 99 on Quebec Self-DeterminationMr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, GPQ): Mr. Speaker, the Groupe parlementaire québécois applauds the Superior Court's decision to recognize Quebec's Bill 99 and the Quebec nation's right to self-determination as legitimate. 
In a democracy, a 50% plus 1 vote is what it takes to make a choice. That is the cornerstone of the democratic values that guide this House. Some members have a flexible notion of democracy. As a party to the legal challenge against Bill 99, the federal government, regardless of the party in power, proved that it does not mind taking a heavy-handed approach if it feels that doing so is in its interest. Certain Quebec MPs from the two governing parties have shown that they are willing to betray their own people's rights if their leader tells them to. 
That is why we, as democratic Quebeckers, must remain vigilant. We do not have the luxury of taking our rights for granted when the government challenges our freedom of choice in court. 
2018 Liberal National ConventionMr. Darrell Samson (Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that you could not be with us in Nova Scotia for our convention. You would have seen the warm welcome we received as well as the new convention centre. You could have heard the mayor of Halifax talk about his city, heard the four premiers of the Atlantic provinces talk about their partnership, and seen all the networking that took place among Liberals.
It is very important. We had presenters and panels. We had Gerald Butts with David Axelrod, who spoke strategically. We had James Curleigh, who spoke about turning moments into momentum. We had Sophie Trudeau give a passionate speech. We had our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, give a dynamic speech. 
We talked about the middle class. We talked about the people trying to join the middle class. We talked about veterans. We talked about seniors. We talked about youth. It was an outstanding conference. 
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that he is not supposed to use the given names of other hon. members.
The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable. 
AgricultureMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): Mr. Speaker, from tax reform and the rail crisis to the Canada food guide and labelling, from pulse crops and selling wheat to Italy to compensation for concessions on supply management, when it comes to agriculture, the Liberal government has failed on every count.
It is very clear to Canadians that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food holds absolutely no sway with his cabinet colleagues on issues that matter to farmers. People are beginning to speak up, and a movement is taking shape.
 Agriculture is about more than just overalls and the smell of spring. Agriculture is the heart of Canada. It is our lifeblood. It is what nourishes us, whether we live in the Plateau in Montreal or in Thetford Mines, Quebec. Agriculture is about the families in our villages that support local hardware stores, car dealerships, and restaurants.
I am pleased to be hosting the next generation of farmers in Ottawa today. These young folks are passionate about their calling and proud to help grow Canada's economy. To Sabrina, Dany, Anthony, Vincent and Mathieu, and the rest of the next generation of farmers, on behalf of my colleagues, I want to say thank you for believing in Canadian agriculture. They must not lose hope, for in the near future, a Conservative government will be there to ensure that agriculture returns to its rightful place.
Keith AshfieldMr. Matt DeCourcey (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a true gentleman and a humble, hard worker, the hon. Keith Ashfield served the Fredericton region for 16 years at the provincial and federal levels. He was a champion for New Brunswick. Keith passed away Sunday morning.
Keith was elected to the New Brunswick legislature in 1999, where he served as deputy speaker and as minister of natural resources and energy. In 2008, Keith was elected as member of Parliament for Fredericton. During his seven years in Ottawa, he held several cabinet portfolios, including minister of fisheries and oceans, and minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. A dedicated and effective voice for our community, Keith recently launched his return to politics, securing the nomination for his party provincially for the upcoming election. Our region is fortunate to have been served by such a classy and gracious individual. 
On behalf of our community, I share my deepest condolences with his wife Judy, children Seth and Tara, and his entire family. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all at this time. We thank Keith for his dedication and service to our community, our province, and our country. 
Employment Insurance Sickness BenefitsPierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, illness affects us all, directly or indirectly. In our neighbourhood of Vieux-Longueuil, our neighbour Marianne Simard knocked on our door to tell us about her scant 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits.
Marianne's story is particularly striking because she is fighting cancer and trying to make life easier for all those who will one day be diagnosed with cancer. There are plenty of stories like Marianne's, including that of Marie-Hélène Dubé, the woman behind the “15 weeks to heal is not enough!” movement. She will continue to collect more stories and accounts because one in two Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer one day.
In 2016, the government promised to review the program. Two years later nothing has been done. How can we expect someone with cancer to heal in 15 weeks when the average treatment takes 52 weeks? I invite all those who want to help Marianne, Marie-Hélène, and my team to join us in forcing the government to keep its promise. Together we can continue to put pressure on the government and right this wrong.
Missing CanadianMr. Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Jesse Galganov, a wonderful young man from my riding who has been missing since last fall. Jesse was headed to medical school, but first chose to go on a trip to discover the world. He disappeared while hiking the Santa Cruz trail in Huarrez, Peru, and despite his parents Alisa and Todd's herculean efforts, he has yet to be found.
I call upon the Peruvian authorities to do everything they can to assist Jesse's parents. This includes directing the Peruvian police to fully co-operate with the private search and rescue experts they have hired, to work with the Canadian government in the investigation, and to provide skilled resources as necessary.
I would also like to thank the Prime Minister for meeting with Jesse's father in Peru just two weeks ago. The hearts and prayers of all Canadians are with Alisa and Todd and their family. If anyone has any information about Jesse, please email helpusfindjesse@gmail.com.
Sauveur ChampagneMr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to an extraordinary man, Sauveur Champagne. Throughout his life he shaped his family, physical, and social environment. 
From a young age, and together with his brothers and friends, he cleared and worked on the land, and built and repaired the buildings and tools he needed on his farm, thus carving out his part of the country. He was a loving husband, an understanding, devoted and attentive father and grandfather, who helped solve all of life's problems, large and small. 
 Mr. Champagne was involved in every municipal, regional, and provincial organization where he could make a difference. He founded social institutions that help people in our community live in dignity, such as the Lotbinière Caregivers' Association. 
As a tribute to Sauveur Champagne for his incredible sense of community, his constant dedication to his family and friends, and all the help he gave to strangers who crossed his path without expecting anything in return, let us remember his motto, “Save someone and one day you, too, will be saved.”
You will never be forgotten, Sauveur Champagne. 
Community RunsMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that you like to run, so I am asking you to reach out to the communities across our country to get out running this summer. We started the race season in April, on Easter, with the Beaches Easter Run with the member for Beaches—East York. It is a great way to get out and start the day.
I am looking forward to the race season in our community. We are going to have two races in Tommy Thompson Park with MEC. One is going to take place on June 24 and the other on September 9. I will be at both of them, and I am hoping to see the community out too.
I will be at the Pride and Remembrance Run on June 23. In Withrow Park, we are going to be having the Kids' Run for Nature, a family friendly run, on June 10. It was started by two elementary school kids from my area, Jasmine and Jett. It raises funds for the World Wildlife Fund. It is an amazing time out.
There is more. I am inviting the community to join me for weekly runs. People can find out all the details on my Facebook page and website.
Shakespeare by the SeaMr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.):   I stand before the House to call On members, and good folk of our city, To celebrate twenty-five years in all Of Shakespeare by the Sea theatre company. In a battery at Point Pleasant Park On Canada Day, the curtain first rose, A tradition began, and left its mark And shapes a fame which annually grows. Many plays, old and new, have given voice To Halifax as a rich dramatic feast, Presenting a varied cultural choice The largest outdoor theatre in the east. Performance of quality always will be The legacy of Shakespeare by the Sea.  
Lethbridge HurricanesMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the Lethbridge Hurricanes on winning a spot in the WHL playoffs. Lethbridge could not be more proud. Their hard work, team spirit, and many hours of practice and competition have brought them to this point.
They are two games into the battle against the Swift Current Broncos, and as they enter game three, we are looking forward to cheering them on from home. Together they will test the bounds of their grit, determination, and drive, and I am confident that they will come out on top. 
I have a bit of love from their Lethbridge family to them:
“Go 'Canes!” “We love you guys!” “Beat them at home and take it to 'em late in the series!” “We believe in you.” “Good luck guys!” “Just win baby!” “You've got this boys!” “We're behind you.” “Play your game and believe!” “Couldn't be more proud!” “Rock 'em like a hurricane!” “Go Canes Go!”
Canada-France Interparliamentary AssociationHon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as president of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association, it gives me great pleasure this week to welcome the French delegation of our association, chaired by MP Annie Chapelier, with the co-chairs of the friendship groups, Senator Claudine Lepage and MP Jean-Luc Lagleize. 
As the two key players in the international Francophonie, Canada and France are inseparable friends. We share many values. We have many things in common, such as culture, civil law, ways of thinking and doing things, and especially language. As Yves Duteil said in his song La langue de chez nous:
  It is a beautiful language with splendid words Whose history can be traced in its variations Where we feel the music and smell the herbs Goat's cheese and wheat bread ... It tells us that in that far-off country of snow It faced the winds blowing from all directions To impose its words even in the schools And that our own language is still spoken there ... And from Île d'Orléans to Contrescarpe Listening to the people of this country sing It sounds like the wind moving over a harp And composing a whole symphony ...  
A warm welcome to our colleagues from France.
Organ DonationMr. Marc Serré (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following the devastating crash a little more than two weeks ago, we learned that the Humboldt Broncos Logan Boulet had signed his organ donor card. Since then, Canadians across the country have come together, and organ donation rates have increased dramatically. Canadians come together in times of tragedy to care for one another. Because of Logan's heroic decision to become an organ donor, he saved the lives of six people who desperately needed a transplant.
While 90% of Canadians say that organ donation is important, only 20% agree to become organ donors. Greater Sudbury and Sturgeon Falls, in Nickel Belt, rank third and sixteenth in terms of number of registered donors in Ontario. I urge all Canadians to go to their provincial tissue and organ donation website to register. By registering to become an organ donor, you may become a hero to someone in need.
Thank you. Meegwetch.
Duke and Duchess of CambridgeHon. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, early this morning, Canadians were delighted to learn of the birth of a third child to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Kensington Palace has announced that the royal baby, a boy, was born at 6:01 this morning, weighing a healthy eight pounds, 11 ounces. The little prince is now fifth in the line of succession to the Canadian throne, and is Her Majesty the Queen's sixth great-grandchild.
 The Duke and Duchess and their children visited Canada most recently in the autumn of 2016, touring British Columbia and Yukon. We look forward to having them return to Canada with the newest member of their family soon.
 On behalf of Canada's official opposition, I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and wish their family great happiness in the future.
Mrs. Alexandra Mendès (Brossard—Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to warmly congratulate the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their third child.
A new baby is always a reason to feel joyful and hopeful. I am certain that my colleagues will join me in wishing the new Cambridge baby a life of purpose, compassion, and fulfillment.
To Her Majesty, the Queen of Canada, our warmest congratulations on the arrival of her sixth great-grandchild.
I am delighted to join the millions of people who are welcoming this news with the joy that every baby around the world could hope for when a new life begins. 
With renewed best wishes to Their Royal Highnesses, Prince George and Princess Charlotte, on the birth of their new brother.
Events in Windsor—TecumsehMs. Cheryl Hardcastle (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it was another inspiring weekend in Windsor—Tecumseh.
 I salute Sho event studio, fostering local arts, Kim Kristy and Pat Jefflyn of Canadian Arts Productions in making a film about civil rights activists Viola Desmond and Harriet Tubman, based on the original stage work of Leslie McCurdy, daughter of the late MP, Howard McCurdy, a distinguished trailblazer to whom my colleague from Windsor West recently paid tribute.
The Essex Region Conservation Authority's Earth Day celebration reinforced the work it and its foundation do all year long. It is clear, when speaking to people at varied events, that we know our natural environment—
The Speaker: I apologize but I am afraid we are having another problem.
 I will ask the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh to redo her statement if she does not mind.
Cheryl Hardcastle: Mr. Speaker, it was another inspiring weekend in Windsor—Tecumseh. I salute Sho event studio, fostering local arts, Kim Kristy and Pat Jefflyn of Canadian Arts Productions in making a film about civil rights activists Viola Desmond and Harriet Tubman, based on the original stage work of Leslie McCurdy, daughter of the late MP, Howard McCurdy, a distinguished trailblazer to whom my colleague from Windsor West recently paid tribute.
 The Essex Region Conservation Authority's Earth Day celebration reinforced the work it and its foundation do all year long. It is clear, when speaking to people at varied events, that we know our natural environment cannot survive without a regulatory environment. 
 I applaud my colleagues, the member for Courtenay—Alberni for his pmb on ocean plastics; the member for Essex for hers on safe water; and our NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, who has been outspoken on eliminating single-use plastics. I also applaud the caring Canadians in my riding who want to hold bold action now to protect our future.
Keith AshfieldHon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of our Conservative caucus, to mark the passing of a good friend to all of us in the House, and to so many around the country, our former colleague, Keith Ashfield. 
Keith was a fixture here in Ottawa, his home away from home when he could not return to his beloved New Brunswick.
Determined to serve the people of New Maryland, Fredericton, and beyond, Keith put his name on the ballot of the provincial legislature in 1991 and won a seat just a few years later.
A true blue Conservative, Keith would take the fight to Ottawa in 2008 as a member of the Conservative government, where he would serve as a cabinet minister and a staunch defender of Atlantic Canadian interests until 2015. Throughout his political career, Keith fought to champion and protect Canada's natural abundance, both as the provincial minister for natural resources and the federal minister for fisheries. 
 Rural families and workers, and those who rely on Canada's natural wealth to help feed their families, knew they had an advocate in Keith Ashfield. Even as he faced health challenges in recent years, he never stopped working for the New Brunswick communities he loved so much.
Keith even said just a few months ago that he would run at the provincial level again. There is no doubt that the people of New Brunswick are mourning this loss today knowing that Keith was fighting for them yet again.
On behalf of our entire caucus, my wife Jill and I send our sincere condolences to Keith's wife Judy and their loved ones. May his memory be a blessing for all of them. 
Earth DayWilliam Amos: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, April 22, we joined the international community in celebrating Earth Day and honouring our planet. In the Pontiac, from Gatineau to Wakefield, folks of all ages attended workshops, went hiking, took part in panel discussions, and even attended a choral performance. 
Earth Day is an opportunity to appreciate the beauty and diversity of nature on our planet and to enjoy Canada's most magnificent landscapes. We are inspired, motivated, and uplifted by them, and they give us hope while reminding us of our shared responsibility to be good stewards of our planet. 
All Canadians know we were not the first people to set foot on earth, and we will not be the last. It is our responsibility to ensure our children and our children's children have the opportunity to see, hear, and feel the presence of whales off the coast of Nova Scotia, herds of caribou in Yukon and elsewhere, grizzly bears in Alberta, and wolves in the riding of Pontiac. Together, and only together, can we protect our lands, waters, and wildlife for generations to come.

Oral Questions
Incident in TorontoAndrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, I trust I speak for all parliamentarians when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with those victims of the recent tragic situation unfolding in Toronto right now.
 I wonder if the Prime Minister will join me in sending our best wishes to the community impacted and update the House as to any information he may be able to share as the situation unfolds.
Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition his question and his concern. Our thoughts are with those affected by this incident. We are still gathering information. As soon as we can, we will share more information with Canadians.
Our thoughts are with those affected by this incident. We are learning more about what happened and will keep Canadians informed of developments. 
Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAndrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing a crisis at its borders. Last year, the RCMP intercepted more than 20,000 people crossing illegally into Canada. While thousands of people follow the rules and wait in line, sometimes for many months, this government is letting thousands more bypass the process and jump the queue. 
Why are families that follow the rules being pushed to the back of the line by those who want to break the law? 
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we continue to ensure the integrity of our immigration system. People who arrive legally or illegally are subject to security checks and an established, rigorous process as part of our immigration system. Canadians can be assured that its rules will be applied throughout the process no matter how people enter the country. 
Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, so far in 2018, 6,300 people have crossed illegally into Canada. That is a rate of more than 60 people per day, worse than in 2017. This is a crisis that takes resources away from those families that are trying to come to Canada the right way, and prioritizes queue jumpers.
 Could the Prime Minister explain to those families that have been waiting patiently for months for their turn to become proud Canadians why he is prioritizing those who are jumping the line?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Canada is signatory to international conventions, which means when people arrive in our country, we process them in a responsible, rigorous way. That is how Canadians expect us to do it. That is exactly what we are doing. Suggesting that we should instead be ignoring our international obligations and conventions is simply not what Canadians expect from any government.
The EnvironmentAndrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, in his report last week, the parliamentary budget officer confirmed something that everyone except the Prime Minister already knows, namely that the Liberal carbon tax is going to destroy the Canadian economy.
The math is simple: as the Liberal carbon tax goes up, economic growth goes down.
My question is also simple; how long has the Prime Minister known that the carbon tax is going to destroy Canada's economic growth?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, comments like that one prove that the Conservatives learned nothing from Canadians in the last election. The Conservatives continue to believe that there is a choice to be made between what is good for the environment and what is good for the economy. Meanwhile, after 10 years of inaction on the environment, they left Canada with very little economic growth. 
As we promised Canadians, we are going to continue investing in both the economy and the environment. The Conservatives, of course, can continue advocating Stephen Harper's approach.
Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, it is Liberals who are confused on this matter. In fact, when we asked for proof that a carbon tax would have any concrete impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, both the environment minister and the Prime Minister could not come up with an answer.
 However, there is evidence that a carbon tax will damage the Canadian economy. We asked for that through an access to information, but that was blacked out. The excuse for blacking it out was that just that information alone would damage the Canadian economy. If that information alone would damage the Canadian economy, how bad will the carbon tax be for the economy?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to see in 2018 the Conservatives still doubling down on Stephen Harper's failed approach, not understanding that putting a price on carbon pollution is the way to build a strong economy for the future. 
Quite frankly, I find it a bit rich that the members opposite are complaining about secrets. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should stop censoring the member for Beauce.
HealthMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this tragic incident, their families and, of course, the people of Toronto. We will be closely following any developments. 
At least one in five Canadians must choose between purchasing prescription medication and stocking the fridge. This is why a universal pharmacare program makes sense.
Good ideas have nothing to do with politics. Our policies include a universal pharmacare program, and the members of the Liberal Party decided to vote in favour of it, as they also did in 2016. 
Will the government take this opportunity to immediately create a universal pharmacare program?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are proud of our universal health care system, which focuses on people's needs rather than their ability to pay. However, I think we all agree that it could be improved. We have created an advisory council to examine, evaluate, and recommend options for a national pharmacare program. This builds on what we have already done, in terms of lowering the cost of medications and simplifying the regulatory process for drug approvals.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, in their 1997 election platform, the Liberals were already talking about the urgent need for a universal pharmacare program. That was 21 years ago, and we are still waiting.
The purpose of an election is for parties to present their political agendas. Election promises should never be just words. Once the party takes power, it must be willing to keep those promises. Canadians want the government to work on implementing a universal pharmacare program now, and that is what they deserve. They do not want to have to wait until the next election campaign only to hear the same promise.
Do the Liberals plan to conduct another study to buy time and then make the same promise in 2019?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising to see the NDP trying to implement something without a clear plan. On this side of the House, we believe in making a plan first and then implementing it. That is why we created an advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare, with a mandate to study, evaluate, and recommend options for implementing a national pharmacare program. This builds on the work we started by lowering prescription drug prices and streamlining the regulatory process for drug approvals. 
Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): Seriously, Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve action. The Liberals promised to implement pharmacare 21 years ago. This past weekend their party members called on the government to act. We have the PBO saying that national pharmacare would save Canadians billions of dollars, and the health committee is calling for public prescription drug coverage for all Canadians. What was the government's response? It was to call for yet another study. 
Whom do the Liberals not trust: the PBO, the health committee, or their own membership?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the NDP being filled with ideas but it has no idea how to actually implement those ideas. 
On this side of the aisle we believe in developing a plan before we implement something. That is why we have created an advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare. It has a mandate to study, evaluate, and recommend options on a path forward on pharmacare. This builds on concrete work we have already undertaken to improve access to necessary prescription medications, including steps to lower drug prices and streamline the regulatory process. 
Rachel Blaney: Mr. Speaker, with exploding household debt and over half of Canadians on the brink of not being able to afford their bills, Canadians simply cannot afford to wait another 21 years. It is shameful that 34 years after medicare was introduced, our health care system still has this gaping hole in it. Unfilled prescriptions just mean higher hospital costs down the road. 
This situation is unfair and unaffordable for Canadians. Today in this House, will the government commit to implementing pharmacare?
Justin Trudeau: Again, Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect things to be done right. That is exactly what we are doing. We are making sure, with a panel of experts, that we move forward in a responsible way. 
We believe in actually putting forward solutions that will help Canadians, and not just grandstanding on labels and ideas. We will deliver, like we have delivered on the Canada child benefit, like we have delivered on lowering taxes for the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest 1%, two things which the NDP stood against in the last election.
Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the situation regarding the entry of illegal immigrants into Canada is nowhere near being resolved. 
Every day, we are seeing a massive increase in the number of people entering Quebec illegally. We have had this problem for over a year now, and, as usual, the Liberal government issues formal statements but is incapable of coming up with any concrete solutions.
My question for the Prime Minister is simple: what concrete steps does he plan to take to stop this massive influx of illegal immigrants?
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada remains open and welcoming to people who need protection. However, our government is determined to maintain orderly migration.
We have invested over $173 million for faster processing of asylum claims and border security operations. We have worked with the Province of Quebec and have done a lot to deal with this issue through the Intergovernmental Task Force on Irregular Migration. We have responded to provincial issues. We will continue to work to make sure that this issue is addressed properly.
Alain Rayes: Mr. Speaker, the problem of illegal immigration into Canada has been well known for over a year now and nothing has changed. 
There were over 20,000 clandestine entries into Canada last year, and nearly 90% of those were in Quebec alone. The good weather has only just begun, and we have already had 6,373 border crossings, including 5,609 in Quebec alone. At this rate, that number will double by the end of the year.
 What does the government plan to do to stop this illegal activity?
Ahmed Hussen: Mr. Speaker, the members of the party opposite would have us believe that they actually care about border security. That is the party that cut $390 million from the Canada Border Services Agency, jeopardizing border security operations. That is the party that cut refugee health care for the most vulnerable people: pregnant women and victims of torture. That is the party that did that. As recently as March 22, when it came time to stand up for the Yazidi survivors of Daesh atrocities and vote for $14 million budgeted toward those services, that party was missing in action and voted against it.
Hon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no one is disputing that the Prime Minister has a really expensive plan to deal with this issue. In reality, though, it is not working. No matter how much he spends, more people are illegally crossing the border every day. The only criticism that he has of our former government which, by the way, did not have this #WelcomeToCanada problem in managing our borders, is that we were not expensive enough. 
Why does the Prime Minister think it is fair to prioritize hundreds of millions of tax dollars we do not have on illegal border crossers instead of stopping the flow? 
Ahmed Hussen: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is on record as calling on our government to spend more money for faster processing of asylum claims and border security operations. Budget 2018 delivers exactly that. What is absolutely irresponsible is for that party to preach to us on border security when it cut almost $400 million from the CBSA, jeopardizing the same border security that its members are complaining about now. We will put our record up against the Conservatives' record any day.
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, I do not think our former government had 400 people illegally entering Quebec every day. Every time we point out that the Prime Minister is allowing the flow of illegal border crossers to dramatically increase, the Liberals talk about how much taxpayer dollars they are spending. It is kind of like having a hole in one's roof during a storm but the plan is to replace the hardwood every day. 
Why is the Prime Minister prioritizing Canadian tax dollars on making it easier for people to illegally enter the country and stay here for years with social benefits instead of stopping the flow?
Ahmed Hussen: Mr. Speaker, what a responsible party does is it invests in border security. We have done that in budget 2018 with an investment of $173 million in border security operations and faster processing of asylum claims. There is $74 million for the Immigration and Refugee Board so that refugee claims can be heard faster. 
The Conservatives do not have that record. Their record is they left us with a massive backlog in asylum claims at the IRB. Their record is they left us with fewer border security operations as a result of cutting almost $400 million from CBSA. They have a shameful record on this issue.
Public SafetyMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this weekend we learned that ISIS fighters returned to Canada with chemical weapons knowledge. ISIS terrorists are known to use commercially available toxic chemicals in attacks on civilians. It is unacceptable that Canadians only learned of this through the access to information process. 
I will ask again, are those violent traitors under surveillance, yes or no?
Mr. Mark Holland (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are obviously constantly monitoring the situation to ensure that any individual who poses a threat to the country is immediately apprehended and brought to justice. I would hold out that when the party opposite was dealing with people of interest and concern, the 60-some individuals who were of concern during its mandate, not one charge was laid. We currently have two. Where we have evidence, we pursue that. 
I would state as a last comment that with respect to the incident he is talking about, the risk level was rated as extremely low.
Pierre Paul-Hus: Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous that any bit of information Canadians are getting on this is through an access to information request. It is clear that the Prime Minister has no respect for Canadians when he keeps refusing to be transparent on this file. The Prime Minister is prepared to accept these traitors as “an extraordinarily powerful voice for preventing radicalization”, but he has not even heard their confessions.
Again, who are these terrorists and where do they live?
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, if there is a problem, if there is any evidence of wrongdoing or ill intent against Canada, then our government and our officials will take immediate action without question. The evidence is irrefutable. During the Conservative governments' mandates, no one was charged.
 Under our government, there are two. Where we have evidence, we act.
PensionsMs. Karine Trudel (Jonquière, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government has so far failed to come up with any solutions to help workers and retirees who have been negatively affected by recent bankruptcy proceedings, such as the closure of Sears. At this weekend's Liberal convention, the party encouraged the government to finally do something. The NDP put forward a much more practical proposal in Bill C-384 that would put an end to pension theft once and for all.
Will the government support this bill?
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government has been very clear when it comes to strengthening pensions. That is why in the last budget, we put forward a plan to make sure there was a whole-of-government approach when it comes to strengthening pensions. This goes above and beyond the measures we have taken to support the CPP. We will continue to work with other departments and officials to make sure we come forward with a robust plan to help provide more pension security for Canadian workers.
Mr. Scott Duvall (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have no plan in the budget. Workers and retirees expect their government to change Canada's bankruptcy and insolvency laws to protect their interests and to end the theft of their pensions. The government and the party's resolutions talk nothing more than consultations. Canadians do not need more consultations. They need action. The NDP has given the government the fix in Bill C-384.
When will the government get on with the job instead of fooling around with these meaningless “calls for inaction”?
Navdeep Bains: Mr. Speaker, what is disappointing to hear from the member opposite is his lack of support for the budget measures we put forward to strengthen Canadian pensions. We have been very clear about income security, making sure that we provide the adequate resources for those individuals who retire to make sure they have the support they need to retire with dignity. The pension initiatives we have put forward in our budget reflect our government's commitment. We will continue to advance that in a meaningful way, and we hope the members opposite will support us.
The EnvironmentPierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, today the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that the carbon tax would erase $10 billion from Canada's economy by the year 2022. I filed access to information requests asking how much this tax would cost the average Canadian family. 
The finance minister has the numbers, but he has redacted them from documents released. Will he reveal today how much that tax will cost the average Canadian family? How much?
Mr. Jonathan Wilkinson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that climate change is real and they expect their government to take responsible and effective action while strengthening our economy and creating good middle-class jobs.
Let us be clear: Canada's GDP is measured in the trillions of dollars. We are talking about roughly the same rate of growth with or without carbon pricing, and that is just one side of the coin: the PBO did not model the economic opportunities that are driven through the innovation that the carbon pricing will provide. Putting a price on pollution will help in addressing a critical environmental issue while concurrently unlocking enormous economic opportunities going forward for this country—
The Speaker: Order. I am afraid I have to remind the hon. members for Abbotsford and Durham that we wait our turns to speak and do not interrupt when someone else is speaking. Of course, the Standing Orders provide for not interrupting them, so they will not want to do that in the future.
The hon. member for Carleton.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, not only is the government redacting the cost of the carbon tax, but it is also redacting the minister's ability to answer questions on the issue here in the House of Commons. Most of us do not blame it for doing that, having heard some of his answers in the past.
The member across the way says that the PBO failed to calculate the wonderful opportunities that the carbon tax will bring to the economy, but the only opportunity that the PBO found in his calculations is the loss of $10 billion of annual economic activity.
How much will that tax cost the average Canadian family?
Jonathan Wilkinson: Mr. Speaker, the memo that the hon. member refers to was released months ago, was discussed previously in exchanges in the House, was actually prepared under the previous Conservative government, and clearly thus does not represent the approach to the pricing of carbon pollution that we have negotiated and developed with the provinces and territories.
Carbon pricing works. It creates a powerful but low-cost incentive to cut pollution, encouraging people and businesses to save money by reducing their energy use and investing in clean solutions that will help to create good middle-class jobs.
The BudgetPierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, if the government has nothing to hide, then it does not need to use all of that black ink to cover up the cost of the carbon tax to the average Canadian family.
Speaking of costs, we learned today that the government's already promise-breaking deficit will be even bigger than the finance minister admitted just a few months ago. He said it would be $18 billion; now the PBO says it will be $22 billion, almost a 20% increase in only a couple of weeks.
How did the finance minister get his numbers so wrong again?
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, the good news for Canadians is clear: there are more Canadians working and there has been better economic growth, and it has all been about the policies that we have put in place.
We put out our fiscal forecasts in our budget and we stand by those forecasts. It is important to listen to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, but in this case what we are saying is that we stand firmly behind the forecasts that we put out, the forecasts that show a declining level of debt to GDP over the five-year term, the forecasts that show that we are able to be fiscally responsible while investing in Canadians and helping Canadian families. We stand firmly behind those forecasts.
Pierre Poilievre:  Mr. Speaker, that was not the only bad news for Canadian taxpayers, present and future: we also learned today that Canadians will spend vastly more on federal government debt interest. By 2022, the cost of servicing our national debt will rise by two-thirds, to almost $40 billion. That is as much as we spend, as a government of Canada, on health care.
How is it in the interests of Canadian taxpayers to fork over more to wealthy bondholders instead of funding our treasured social programs?
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, let us consider what is in Canadians' interests. What clearly is in Canadians' interests is to invest in Canadian families. What clearly is in Canadians' interests is to make sure that Canadians are working. Our country works when Canadians are working, and that is exactly what we are showing. 
We are showing the highest rate of growth that we have seen in a long time, and that is because in 2015 Canadians made a decision to go against the failed policies of the previous government and to invest in Canadians' future. That is what we are doing.
Natural ResourcesKennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, 26 minutes into his April 15 news conference, the Prime Minister guaranteed Canadians that construction will finally begin on the Kinder Morgan pipeline within weeks, but he needs to explain how this is possible. The company has met fewer than half of the 157 required National Energy Board conditions, one-third of the final route has not yet been approved, and now the company is begging for relief on many conditions and wants to delay detailed route hearings.
Is the Prime Minister now going to override the authority of the National Energy Board so he can force this pipeline through British Columbia?
Hon. Jim Carr (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the pipeline was approved by the Government of Canada with 157 conditions because we believe that the pipeline will create good jobs for Canadians, will open up export markets so that we do not have to rely on only one single market, the United States, and at the same time will give us a better price for a our resources. It makes very good economic sense. 
At the same time, there is the $1.5 billion investment to create a world-class oceans protection plan and a co-developed monitoring scheme with indigenous peoples. 
Growth, environmental stewardship, and partnership with indigenous peoples—that is the recipe for growth.
Ms. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): Mr. Speaker, coastal communities are alarmed about the marine impacts of Kinder Morgan's new pipeline: a sevenfold tanker traffic increase, a terrible oil spill response, bitumen spill risks, traffic harming orca whales, and disrespec for indigenous rights. Instead of protecting these vital public interests, the Prime Minister is more concerned with protecting the interests of a Texas-based oil company. 
Why will the Liberals not stand up for B.C.'s coast and keep the promises they made to indigenous leadership?
Jim Carr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said a sevenfold increase in tanker traffic. Actually, it is one more tanker a day—one—which will be surrounded by world-class spill response at a time when indigenous people, for the first time, have been involved from day one in becoming a part of the monitoring of the safety of the line, and we believe that we are going to leave the backyard of indigenous people better than we had found it.
InfrastructureMs. Filomena Tassi (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government came into office with a promise to make investments in our communities to make them stronger, more sustainable, and more inclusive. In Ontario and in my riding of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, communities have benefited by these early investments. 
Provincial and municipal leaders have said that they require long-term and predictable funding so they can plan ahead. Can the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities update this House on investments the government is making in Ontario?
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to the thank the hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas for her question and for her advocacy.
Our government will invest more than $8 billion in federal funding to support public transportation in Ontario over the next decade, including $200 million in Hamilton alone. These investments will reduce traffic gridlock, improve air quality, connect people to better jobs and services, and provide better and accessible transportation for seniors and people with disabilities.
Natural ResourcesMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 2016, foreign investment in Canada fell by 42% and again by 27% last year. U.S. investment in Canada decreased by half, while Canadian investment in the U.S. is up two-thirds since the Liberals were elected. The stalled Trans Mountain expansion directly affects Canada's growth. Natural resource jobs are middle-class jobs for Canadians. The Liberals put all those jobs at risk by undermining Canadian energy. 
When will the Prime Minister stop helping Donald Trump steal Canadian investment and Canadians' jobs? 
Jim Carr: Mr. Speaker, investment in Canada was up in 2017. I just had conversations with international investors this morning, who say that in international conferences the word on Canada is that it is a wonderful place to invest, because of the stability of our political system and because of the availability of a skilled and diverse labour market.
Again, we have members of the opposition from Alberta who can only talk doom and gloom about Alberta when Alberta is leading the Canadian economy. We are all proud of that on this side of the House.
Shannon Stubbs: Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals killed northern gateway, energy east, and the Pacific northwest LNG project and now delaying the Trans Mountain expansion, the energy sector is in crisis. The Bank of Canada predicts Canadian energy investment will decline in 2018 and then drop to zero. The services association warns that “Investment dollars are fleeing Canada for regions of the world offering a more competitive environment...and where there is greater confidence in getting projects approved and completed.”
When will the Prime Minister stop attacking oil and gas and champion energy investment in Canada?
Jim Carr: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member, who is from Alberta, has so little confidence in the entrepreneurship of Albertans and the capacity of Albertans to innovate. It was their innovation that gave us the opportunity to develop this resource in the first place. 
Does the member find that all this talk about doom and gloom gives inspiration to foreign investors to invest in Canada? Perhaps she is part of the problem.
Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's economic and energy policies are absolutely disastrous for the Canadian economy.
The Liberal carbon tax will cost the Canadian economy $10 billion. The worst of it is that, since the Liberals have been in power, $80 billion less has been invested in energy, 125,000 jobs have been lost, and two pipeline projects have been scuttled while another remains in limbo. That is the Liberal government's track record on the energy file.
When will someone in this government step up and do the right thing for the Canadian economy and Canadian energy?
Jim Carr: Mr. Speaker, we expanded export capacity for the Alberta Clipper project, the Nova Gas pipeline, the Line 3 replacement project, and the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline. We support the Keystone XL pipeline. 
Their record in 10 years in office was not one kilometre of pipe built to expand our export markets, failed attempts to consult with indigenous people, and no attention paid to environmental stewardship. Why would we follow that failed record?
Mr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's attempt to phase out the Canadian energy sector will have national consequences. A survey released today illustrates that Ontarians believe that Trans Mountain will positively affect their local economy, and 81% believe it will positively influence the economy of Canada. 
Ontarians know that a strong Canadian energy sector means local jobs and investment in Ontario. When will the Prime Minister realize that his attack on the energy sector is hurting not only Alberta but all of Canada?
Jim Carr: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the hon. member. We think this kind of investment in Canada's energy sector is good not only for Alberta and British Columbia but for all of the country. When the Prime Minister and the Minister of Infrastructure and I were in Fort McMurray, we met with Canadians from every region of the country. We were reminded then, as we are reminded every day, that a strong energy sector for Canada is good for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. 
TaxationPierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, the European counterpart to the Minister of Finance told Le Journal de Montréal that Canada's position on taxing web giants is no longer acceptable.
While the European Union and others are showing some backbone, the Government of Canada is dragging its feet and proposing consultations with countries that have already asked the web giants to pay their fair share of taxes. It is completely ridiculous.
What will it take for the government to finally decide to take action? We are at our wit's end.
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times, the benefits of the digital world are not shared equally between the web giants and our artists and creators.
The web giants have a responsibility and must recognize it. As the Minister of Finance has said, the international community has agreed to examine the impact of digitization on key aspects of the existing tax system and try to come to a consensus.
That being said, Canada will continue to be involved in this multilateral work. The G20 countries believe that international co-operation is necessary to respond to the opportunities of the digital world and ensure that the benefits are shared by all.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Liberals promised Canadians the creation of a national food policy, but it took them 18 months to set up a consultation process. Then they consulted farmers for three months over last summer, during the busiest time of the year. Now, six months later, we are still waiting for the food policy. However, based on the minister's response a few weeks ago, it does not look very promising.
The government is spending a lot of time talking to itself, but little to farmers and to Canadians. When are the Liberals going to deliver on a strategy for local, safe, and affordable food for Canadians?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we have consulted and we have over 40,000 replies. We consulted with people, the agricultural sector, and the food industry right across the country. Our government will put a food policy in place that will be a major asset to the food industry and Canada in general. 
JusticeMichael Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Nick Chan was charged with first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and directing a criminal organization.
Today, he is a free man, after the charges were thrown out of court due to delay because of the justice minister's negligence. The minister has failed to fill nine out of 10 new judicial spots to deal with the backlog in Alberta's courts.
In light of that, what excuses will the minister give to this criminal's next victims?
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that we continue to move forward with broad-based criminal justice reform to address delays that were identified by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I was grateful to introduce Bill C-75. I look forward to the member opposite supporting Bill C-75 as we move forward, because it will substantially address the delays in the criminal justice system. I am going to continue to appoint meritorious judges across the country, including in Alberta, of which I have appointed 27 thus far.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Hon. Ed Fast: You're not doing it, though.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Abbotsford seems not to have heard me earlier. I would ask him to keep those comments that I made earlier in mind.
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all of the charges against alleged notorious gang leader Nick Chan were stayed because of court delays. That means that we are now seeing more and more big criminals go free because the Minister of Justice has failed in her duty. It seems that she is doing a lot more to protect criminals than victims.
When will the minister take her responsibilities seriously and appoint judges so that justice can finally be done?
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that we continue to move forward to transform the criminal justice system, with an eye to public safety, protecting victims, and holding offenders to account.
We are going to continue to move on this. This is why our government introduced Bill C-75, which I look forward to the members opposite supporting, given that they are concerned as well about delays in the criminal justice system.
I was also proud and continue to be proud of appointing meritorious judges across the country, 167 in fact, and last year, in 2017, 100 judges, the most of any justice minister in two decades.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in my six years as minister of justice, there was never a shortage of qualified candidates for the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta.
 I am absolutely convinced that there is no shortage of qualified candidates in Alberta today. There is no excuse for a gang leader to have his murder charges stayed because the minister is not appointing the necessary number of judges in Alberta.
 Why is it that the government is enabling gang leaders to walk the streets?
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Mr. Speaker, again, I am happy to stand up to speak about the appointments process that we have instituted. We will follow the appointments process for every appointment that I make.
I have made 167 appointments to the superior courts across this country, 27 in Alberta. I will add again, there were 100 appointments last year, a record of any minister of justice in over two decades.
I look forward to the member opposite also supporting Bill C-75, as we are committed to ensuring that we reduce the delays in the justice system.
Innovation and Economic DevelopmentMr. Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, colleges play an essential role in training Canadians with the skills they need to succeed in today's economy, and in helping local businesses innovate and create new jobs.
 In the Niagara region, through the community and college innovation program, small businesses partner with Niagara College's technology access centre on innovative research to help them stay competitive and expand their businesses. They also provide young Canadians with opportunities to gain hands-on training and job experience.
Can the minister tell this House how our government is supporting innovative research at colleges across the country?
Hon. Kirsty Duncan (Minister of Science and Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government knows that colleges are essential in driving innovation in Canada.
To increase support for collaborative research between business and colleges, budget 2018 invested $140 million in the college and community innovation program.
When I visited the Niagara region with the member for St. Catharines, I heard directly from local businesses about how this investment will train students. It will also help businesses solve pressing challenges, allowing them stay competitive, grow their businesses, and create jobs.
Fisheries and OceansMel Arnold: Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister expropriated 25% of the Arctic surf clam quota, and then awarded it to Liberal insiders, insiders with no company, no indigenous partners, no boats and no plan, just Liberal connections.
 Since their own MP is not standing up for them, the people of Grand Bank have launched a campaign to save their jobs, at grandbankplan.ca.
 Will the government finally put the people of Grand Bank above Liberal insiders and support their plan to save their community?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government stands with the people of Grand Bank. On a number of occasions, I have had the chance to talk with my colleague who represents that community in the House of Commons. In fact, we have plans to work with the community of Grand Bank to ensure that the processing jobs are protected, and to ensure that our commitment to the people who work hard in those plants is respected.
What is surprising is that the hon. member uses a word like “expropriation”, which he knows has absolutely no application in this case. In fact, his previous government had a process to bring a new entrant into this fishery, and they were not worried about the people of Grand Bank then.
The EnvironmentMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the firefighters who responded to the fire on the Kathryn Spirit did not even know if there were still hazardous materials on board. They had not even received the emergency plan. After seven years of mismanaging this file, the government is still taking a lax approach to safety. That is totally irresponsible. For goodness' sake, it took a fire for sprinklers to finally be installed on board. Everyone wants to see this ship gone, but not like this. 
What does the government plan to do to ensure that safety and environmental rules are followed during the rest of the dismantling operations?
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, naturally, our government shares our colleague's concern about the safety of the personnel working on the Kathryn Spirit and sympathizes with the communities that are worried and want to see the Kathryn Spirit gone. That is why we have invested massively to make that happen. A small fire occurred in the machine room of the  Kathryn Spirit. The contractor has confirmed that plans of the work site and the emergency plan were personally given to Beauharnois' director of fire and public safety on December 14, 2017.